Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Cirencester Gas Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Gravesend and Milton Waterworks Bill [Lords,]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Wolverhampton Corporation Bill (by Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Essex) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Heathfield and District Water) Bill,

Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (Cowes) Bill,

Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (Keyhaven) Bill,

Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (Maryport) Bill,

Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (Paignton) Bill,

Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (Whitley Bay) Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

London and North Eastern Railway Order Confirmation Bill[Lords] (by Order),

Consideration deferred till Tuesday, 9th June.

SEA FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.

"to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of. Agriculture and Fisheries under the Sea Fisheries Act, 1868, for the establishment and maintenance of a Several Mussel Fishery in the Estuary of the River Ribble, in the County of Lancaster," presented by Mr. Elliot; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 127.]

SEA FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.

"to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Agriculture and. Fisheries under the Sea Fisheries Act, 1868, for the regulation by the Corporation of the City of Truro of an Oyster and Mussel Fishery in part of the Truro River, in the County of Cornwall," presented by Mr. Elliot; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 128.]

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

JAPANESE FORCES.

Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether having regard to the increasing international tension in the Far East, occasioned by the augmentation of Japanese forces in North China, he will take an early opportunity to make a statement on British foreign policy in the Far East?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): I have already given, and shall naturally continue to give, the House all the information at the disposal of His Majesty's Government regarding the various developments of the situation in the Far East. I do not consider that any more general statement is called for at present.

SMUGGLING.

Mr. MOREING: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he will represent to the Japanese Government that the encouragement to smuggling in North China is incompatible with the ancient doctrine of Wang Tao which is being fostered by them in Manchuria;
(2) Whether, in the interests of British loans secured on the Chinese Customs, he will consult the Chinese Government and the various foreign Governments interested in Chinese loans, with a view to organising an international preventive fleet to stop smuggling in North China?

Mr. EDEN: I can assure my hon. Friend that no relevant consideration that might conduce to a satisfactory solution of the problem will be lost sight of.


I think, however, as regards the suggestion made in his question No. 9, that the best means of checking the smuggling would be the restoration to the Chinese preventive agencies of the normal means of exercising their authority.

Mr. MOREING: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the Japanese have been in practical control of Manchukuo they have been preaching the doctrine of Wang Tao, which, briefly, is, "Do unto others as you would that they should do unto you," and is it not better that they should apply it to North China as well as to Manchukuo?

Mr. EDEN: I should be kept busy if I had to ask all Governments exactly what they think.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Can my right hon. Friend say what Wang Tao is? Has it anything to do with "Wang Ling"?

Mr. MOREING: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any Government other than the British and Chinese Governments has protested to Japan against the smuggling of goods in North China by Japanese subjects?

Mr. EDEN: As I informed the House on Monday last, the United States Government have made representations on the subject at Tokyo. No other Government apart from His Majesty's Government and the Chinese Government have, so far as I am aware, yet taken any similar action, though, as I have already said, His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo has kept in close touch with the representatives of the other Governments interested.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Has the Foreign Office had any conversations with the Treasury about the effect of this smuggling upon our financial commitments?

Mr. EDEN: We are acutely conscious of the effect without having any conversations with the Treasury.

Mr. CHORLTON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any Japanese loans are secured on the Chinese Maritime Customs; and, if so, whether he will represent to the Japanese Government that in their own

interests they should do everything in their power to encourage the effective working of the Chinese Customs service?

Mr. EDEN: So far as I am aware, no Japanese loans are directly secured on the Chinese Maritime Customs. There are, however, the 6 per cent. "Treasury Notes in Japanese yen for the Compensation of Public Properties and Salt Interests at, Tsingtao" of 1923, for which the primary security is the surplus of the Customs revenue and Salt Gabelle. The service of these notes has been in default since 1925. As regards the second part of the question, the attention of the Japanese Government has been called to the detriment which is being caused to legitimate Japanese interests in general by the incidence of wholesale smuggling in North China.

FIXED EASTER.

Mr. DAY: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in view of the fact that in response to the communications addressed by His Majesty's Government to foreign Governments in 1931 for the purpose of fixing a regular date for Easter favorable replies were received from several foreign Powers, he will now consider again approaching those Governments who did not give a definite reply on that occasion, but referred the subject to a committee for further consideration, in order to see whether they will now agree to fix a regular date?

Mr. EDEN: This matter is now in the hands of the Communications and Transit Organisation of the League of Nations, and I do not consider it opportune for His Majesty's Government to take independent action such as is suggested.

Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these Powers agreed on the last occasion?

Mr. EDEN: I am afraid I cannot carry that in my head.

Mr. MABANE: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind many important trading organisations in this country have recently passed reol utions expressing the hope that this w ill be done?

Mr. GALLACHER: Can I take it that Scotland will be excluded from this Bill, because she does not, want it?

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Will the Soviet Government be asked to adopt a modern calendar?

COLLECTIVE SECURITY.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in view of the reluctance of the German Government to reply to the recently submitted questionnaire until the future of the League of Nations is more clearly known, he will take immediate steps to indicate that, so far as this country is concerned, we shall place behind collective security the whole of our strength and resources without reservation or qualification?

Mr. EDEN: The attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the support of the principle of collective security is already well known, and I do not feel that it is necessary to add to the recent statements which have been made on this subject.

Mr. MANDER: In view of the unfortunate uncertainties which still exist on this matter in the country, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that whatever other countries may do, we shall have a clear and courageous policy of collective security?

Mr. EDEN: Whatever other countries do, it will not be very collective unless we take part.

Mr. SANDYS: Surely our strength should be put before and not behind collective security?

ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make with reference to the further charges made by the Italian Government to the League of Nations that dum-dum bullets have been supplied by persons in this country to the Ethiopian forces?

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement upon the renewed official Italian allegations of the use of expanding bullets of British manufacture by Ethiopian troops?

Mr. EDEN: So far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, the position was made quite clear in the very full statement which I made on 18th May last, and I feel sure that the House will agree that no notice need be taken of any further allegations on this subject.

Mr. MANDER: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to treat these slanderous statements with the contempt they deserve?

Mr. MANDER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is intended to receive the Emperor of Abyssinia in this country with the ceremony befitting the head of an independent State, member of the League of Nations?

Mr. EDEN: The Emperor is coming to this country at his own request and incognito, and no question of a ceremonial reception therefore arises.

Mr. MANDER: Will the Emperor be quite free in this country to take any action he may think fit to serve his people, provided it does not conflict with his undertaking in regard to furthering hostilities?

Mr. C0CKS: In view of the fact that he has put up a good fight for British policy, will the Government consider asking him to join the Cabinet?

Commander BOWER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received a report on the recent detention and examination by Italian staff officers of Mr. Bonner at Diredawa; and whether His Majesty's Government propose to take any action in the matter?

Mr. EDEN: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer to the reply which I returned on Monday last to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) as well as to the detailed account of this case circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT on that date. The reply to the second part of the question is that, as at present advised, no further action seems to His Majesty's Government to be required.

Commander BOWER: Is it not time that some steps were taken by His Majesty's Government to prevent these continued insults to this country on the part of the Italian authorities in various parts of the world?

Mr. EDEN: If my hon. and gallant Friend will look at the details of this case, I think he will see that very vigorous action was taken by His Majesty's Government, with, I think, not unsatisfactory results up to the present.

Mr. COCKS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was His Majesty's Government's reply to the communication from the Italian Government on the subject of Ethiopia on 1st May, 1935; and what was the nature of this communication?

Mr. EDEN: So far as I am aware, no communication of any kind was received from the Italian Government on 1st May, 1935.

Mr. COCKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a statement has been made by Signor Mussolini that he instructed his Ambassador in London to open conversation with the British Government upon that date on the Ethiopian question?

Mr. EDEN: I was not aware of that, and I do not think the hon. Member was, since he asked me if I had had a communication on that date.

Mr. COCKS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action was taken by the League in response to the appeal by the Abyssinian Government, on 13th May, 1935, to the League of Nations on the grounds that the independence of Abyssinia was in danger?

Mr. EDEN: The Abyssinian appeal to which the hon. Member refers was considered at the eighty-sixth session of the Council at which two resolutions were adopted on the subject. The first of these resolutions took stock of the position and recorded the measures accepted by both sides to deal with the dispute, among which was the appointment of four arbitrators. The second resolution recorded the decision of the Council to meet, if necessary, on 25th July to consider the appointment of a fifth arbitrator, and to meet on 25th August to examine the situation if no settlement lad been reached by then.

Mr. COCKS: Does it not appear from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that large delays in this matter have occurred to that it was not until months after the

appeal of Abyssinia that her independence was in danger that her general case was heard?

Mr. EDEN: That may be so, but the only reason that any date at all was fixed was due to the activities of His Majesty's Government.

TRIPOLI (BRITISH SUBJECTS' IMPRISONMENT).

Commander BOWER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Carmelo Psaila and Robert Ghirlando, British subjects, recently sentenced by a special tribunal in Tripoli, have exercised their right to appeal; when such appeal will be heard; and whether the British vice-consul is being afforded facilities by the Italian authorities to enable him to help them in presenting their case?

Mr. EDEN: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) on 4th May. Since that date the cases of Messrs. Ghirlando and Psaila have, on my instructions, been very fully discussed by His Majesty's Ambassador at Rome with Signor Mussolini, who has undertaken to give them favourable consideration.

TANGIER.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement in respect of the situation in Tangier; and what steps he is taking in respect to the appointment of a new administrator?

Mr. EDEN: On 8th May the Legislative Assembly in the Tangier Zone voted: firstly, that the present administrators should continue in office until their successors shall have been appointed and taken over their functions secondly, that fresh elections should take place at the beginning of October; thirdly, that the administrator should be Spanish and the assistant administrators for finance, hygiene and judicial affairs be British, French and Italian respectively; fourthly, these appointments should be for three years. The Committee of Control met on 13th May and reached the following decisions on the above motions The first was approved; the second was approved, with the hope that the delay


might be shortened; the third was rejected by a majority; the fourth was approved, with the hope that the three years period might be extended. I understand that the next step is for the matter to conic again before the Legislative Assembly.

AUSTRIA AND CZECHOSLOVAKIA.

Mr. V. ADAMS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is now the policy of His Majesty's Government towards the maintenance of the independence of the states of Austria and Czechoslovakia?

Mr. EDEN: In regard to Austria I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I returned to the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) on 20th May, to which I have nothing to add. As regards Czechoslovakia, the policy of His Majesty's Government is that which results from loyal adherence to the Covenant of the League of Nations.

Mr. MANDER: Can these two countries rely on receiving the same magnificent protection that Abyssinia obtained?

Mr. V. ADAMS: Will my right hon. Friend tell me whether His Majesty's Government would regard any violent interference with these two States as an unfriendly act? If my right hon. Friend cannot answer that, may I ask him whether he is aware of the tranquillising effect that a clear affirmative answer from Great Britain would have in Central Europe?

Mr. EDEN: I am aware that these are very delicate questions and I should like to see them on the Paper.

LONDON NAVAL TREATY.

Mr. ALEXANDER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which of the naval Powers has up to date formally ratified the London Treaty (1936) for the limitation of naval armaments; and on what date it is proposed the treaty should be ratified by the British Government?

Mr. EDEN: The London Naval Treaty (1936) has not yet been ratified by any of the signatories, though the treaty is

reported to have received the approval of the United States Senate on 18th May. As regards the second part of the question, no date has yet been fixed for the ratification of the treaty by His Majesty's Government in respect of the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

GAS MASKS.

Captain PLUGGE: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is the practice when an officer or man retires from the Royal Navy for his gas mask to be retained by the authorities; and whether, in view of the fact that these masks are specially fitted, he will consider the desirability of allowing them to be kept by the retired officers and men so that there will be no need for them to be provided with masks from other sources and that they may help in showing civilians how gas masks should be used?

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Gas masks are, however, made in standard sizes requiring minor adjustment only for individual fitting and, on return, are promptly put back into service. It would not, therefore, be worth the expense to allow wearers to retain their masks on retirement or discharge, especially as the naval pattern necessarily differs considerably from that required for civilian use.

ALLEGED SABOTAGE.

Mr. SORENSEN: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has completed his investigations into the alleged acts of sabotage committed in His Majesty's cruisers, submarines, and battleships; and whether he has discovered any evidence of political motives or that these acts are associated with any political organisation in this country?

Mr. LINDSAY: The formal investigations into the alleged acts of sabotage have been held; they have not revealed whether or not any political motives or organisations were involved.

Mr. SORENSEN: Do I understand, therefore, that there is, in fact, no evidence as to the association of these


alleged acts with political parties or societies; and is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Anti-Socialist Union, to which some hon. Members opposite belong, have asserted that a certain political party is associated with these acts of sabotage?

Mr. LINDSAY: I have nothing to add to the very clear statement that I have made.

Mr. SORENSEN: Does the hon. Gentleman agree, then, that the Anti-Socialist Union is lying in that respect?

Mr. LIND SAY: I am not responsible for that body.

Mr. MAXTON: Why is the Admiralty dismissing fellows, against whom they have no evidence at all, for this business?

Mr. GALLACHER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some unprincipled blackguards have associated—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot use that kind of language inside the House.

CHAPLAINS.

Mr. SORENSEN: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of chaplains employed in His Majesty's Navy and their cost to the State in 1935; and the estimated numerical and financial increase in 1936?

Mr. LINDSAY: The number of chaplains employed in the Royal Navy and their cost to the State in 1935 were 95 and £47,400, respectively. The estimated numerical and financial increases in 1936 are four and —1,600, respectively.

Mr. SORENSEN: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why these specific figures were not in the Navy Estimates recently produced?

Mr. LINDSAY: I should like notice of that question.

ROSYTH DOCKYARD AND PORT EDGAR.

Mr. MATHERS: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can now make a statement regarding the active use of Rosyth Dockyard and Port Edgar?

Mr. LINDSAY: It has been decided to provide for the increased requirements of naval training by building at Rosyth

a combined boys' training establishment and training establishment for artificer apprentices. There is no intention at present of re-opening Port Edgar or the dockyard at Rosyth.

Mr. MATHERS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that previous answers on this point have raised the hope that more extensive use was to be made of Rosyth dockyard and of the destroyer base at Port Edgar? Is there no foundation for that idea, and when will it be possible for the Government make a statement on the more extensive use of these places?

Mr. LINDSAY: I do not think that any previous answer would justify raising the hopes of the hon. Gentleman.

Miss HORSBRUGH: Does my hon. Friend realise from the questions that Scotland is wholly in favour of the extension of the Naval programme?

SINGAPORE AND HONG KONG (AGREEMENT WORKMEN).

Mr. KELLY: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of agreement men from home dockyards now employed at Singapore and Hong Kong?

Mr. LINDSAY: The number of agreement workmen serving at Singapore is 47 and at Hong Kong 141.

SHIPS' NAMES.

Commander BOWER (for Lieut.-Colonel WICKHAM): asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware of the fact that the Navy List contains no vessel named "Blake"; and whether he will consider repairing this omission by giving to one of the recently sanctioned battleships the name of this great admiral?

Mr. LINDSAY: I am pleased to assure the hon. and gallant Member that this illustrious name will receive careful consideration when names for future ships are being selected.

Commander BOWER: Is it not a fact-that Blake was never an admiral, but that, like the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), he was a general at sea?

Mr. GARRO JONES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this great general and


admiral was also a Member of this House, representing one of the rotten boroughs?

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

PROPAGANDA.

Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any evidence as to the source of the propaganda among Arabs in Palestine and Transjordania designed to affect the stability of our administration there?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): No, Sir.

Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider calling for a report on the subject from the High Commissioner, as it is inconceivable that the Intelligence Service of Palestine has not some information on that point?

Mr. MacDONALD: I am quite prepared to do that, but I think that it is inconceivable that, if the High Commissioner had 'any evidence, we should not have heard of it here.

Mr. SHINWELL: Are we to understand from the answer that the Government have made no inquiries as to the source of this strife in Palestine?

Mr. MacDONALD: Naturally, we have made inquiries, and we are keeping a close watch on the whole position. All I said was that we have not evidence as to the source.

Mr. EDE: Are we to understand that, as the right hon. Gentleman did not preface his answer with, "I have been asked to reply," he is now acting for both Departments?

INTIMIDATION (TEL-AVIV).

Mr. MORGAN: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that an ultimatum has been presented by Arab lightermen at Jaffa to the district Commissioner that unless the unloading of ships at the temporary port of Tel-Aviv is stopped there will be further violence; and whether he will ensure that there is no yielding to intimidation in this way?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: I have seen a report of the ultimatum referred to. The High Commissioner for Palestine has already taken measures for dealing with any such attempts at intimidation. When three days ago a ship was approaching for the purpose of unloading cargo she was attacked with bombs thrown from four Arab launches, but eventually proceeded to Tel-Aviv, where she discharged her cargo. The Arab launches were seized by the police and the head boatman arrested.

TANGANYIKA.

Mr. BARR: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the official report by Dr. E. C. Teale and Mr. C. Gillman on their investigations in the Northern Province of Tanganyika and, in particular, to their conclusion that tribal lands urgently need expansion and that certain lands should, as far as possible, be reopened for native occupation; and whether any steps will be taken to carry out this recommendation, together with the other recommendations of the report?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: The recommendations of the Governor in regard to this valuable report have just been received in the Colonial Office and are under consideration, but no decisions have yet been made in regard to them.

CYPRUS.

Mr. LEONARD: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether regulations affecting moneylenders are in force in Cyprus; and whether the amount of interest is controlled and the rate of interest?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: Yes, Sir. In so far as loans made to farmers are concerned, the interest is restricted by law to a maximum of 12 per cent per annum.

Mr. LEONARD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider such an interest charge too high as applying to persons of such poverty, and will he not take steps to modify this charge?

Mr. MacDONALD: The hon. Member asked for information, and I have given him the facts in answer to his question, but, as he may possibly know, the whole


question of agriculture indebtedness in Cyprus is now receiving very careful consideration.

ROYAL AIR FORCE (RATIONS).

Mr. LEACH: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is now in a position to announce the result of the inter-departmental consultations on the use of margarine by the Forces; and, if not, when does he expect to be in such a position?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): As stated in the reply given yesterday to the hon. Member by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War, this matter is still under consideration. I hope that a decision will be reached shortly.

Mr. LEACH: Does the right hon. Baronet realise how I hate to bother him on this subject, and will he save me the necessity of doing so any more by hurrying up these deliberations, so that we may have a very early decision?

Sir P. SASSOON: As far as I can I will do so, because I should hate the hon. Member to do violence to his feelings.

Mr. PALING: Do these consultations concern other foods, such as imported meat?

Sir P. SASSOON: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

TRANS-OCEAN SERVICES (OIL ENGINES).

Mr. CHORLTON: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air which of the new civil air-liners for trans-ocean service are to be fitted with oil engines?

Sir P. SASSOON: None of the aircraft at present projected for this purpose will be so fitted. I am advised that the development of the oil engine has not reached a stage which would justify its incorporation in aircraft for use in trans-ocean services.

Mr. CHORLTON: Will my right hon. Friend take steps with a view to having engines of this type used in some of these flying boats?

Sir P. SASSOON: As the hon. Member knows, we are still experimenting with this type of engine.

"CITY OF KHARTOUM."

Mr. LYONS: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has yet received the report of the inquiry on the disaster of the "City of Khartoum"; and when he proposes to publish the full text thereof?

Sir P. SASSOON: The report has not yet been submitted to my Noble Friend owing to illness of the Inspector of Accidents. It is, however, expected to be ready very shortly and there will be no avoidable delay in publishing it.

Mr. LYONS: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to see that when the report is received it is published forthwith?

Sir P. SASSOON: There will be no avoidable delay.

IMPERIAL AIR-WAYS, LIMITED.

Mr. LEACH: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of employés from his Department who have taken service with Imperial Airways, Limited, in the last 10 years?

Sir P. SASSOON: I regret that the precise information for which the hon. Member asks is not readily available. It is understood, however, from Imperial Airways that, including pilots, they have at present in their employ 308 persons who previously served in the Royal Air Force. Of this number, two had service in military branches of the Air Ministry before their retirement from the Royal Air Force. The above figures are, of course, exclusive of the two Government directors.

Mr. LEACH: Can the right hon. Baronet say whether this larger number of employés who have transferred their services to Imperial Airways includes a number of technical men?

Sir P. SASSOON: It is quite natural that people who have served in the Royal Air Force as fitters should afterwards go into civil aviation.

MAYBURY COMMITTEE (REPORT).

Mr. ROLAND ROBINSON: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air, when he expects to receive the report of the Maybury Committee?

Sir P. SASSOON: I understand that it will be some weeks before this committee will be in a position to submit its report to my Noble Friend.

Mr. ROBINSON: In view of the necessity for the development of air ports in this country will my right hon. Friend call for this report as early as possible?

Sir P. SASSOON: Yes, Sir.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the report will be published?

NIGHT FLYING (OBSTRUCTIONS, LIGHTING).

Mr. ROLAND ROBINSON: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air, what steps the Government have taken to make themselves responsible for the proper identification by night of points dangerous to night-flying air pilots; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into all such points of danger, with a view to their proper identification both in light and in darkness at the Government's expense?

Sir P. SASSOON: The question to which my hon. Friend refers is under active consideration. He will, no doubt, have observed that notice has been given of an Amendment of the Air Navigation Bill, now in Committee, to provide for the lighting of certain obstructions, and I should prefer to await the result of discussion of this Amendment before making any further statement.

FLYING FLEA AIRCRAFT.

Mr. SIMMONDS: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the number of deaths of pilots of the Flying Flea type of aircraft, he will arrange to test one of these aircraft in the large wind channel at Farnborough, in order that its flying qualities may be more fully investigated?

Sir P. SASSOON: An application to test an aircraft of the Flying Flea type has been under consideration, but so far it has been impossible to make the wind tunnel available owing to other and more urgent demands upon it. While it may be possible to arrange for a test in future, I am advised that as all aircraft of the Flying Flea type are not identical in design, a test of a single aircraft would not be conclusive as to the type in general.

Mr. SIMMONDS: In view of the fact that in addition to a number of civilians a number of senior serving officers in the Royal Air Force have recently been killed on this kind of aircraft, cannot the right hon. Gentleman take steps to make a practical test even if this wind channel should not be available?

Sir P. SASSOON: The question dealt only with the wind channel.

Mr. LYONS: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any report on the latest unfortunate casualty caused by one of these so-called aircraft last week?

Sir P. SASSOON: Not yet.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTOR VEHICLES (SPEEDOMETERS).

Mr. DAY: asked the Minister of Transport whether, on the grounds of public safety and to ensure that passengers using public service vehicles making long journeys will know at what speed they are travelling through built-up and restricted areas, he will consider making an order under the Road Traffic Act for all such vehicles to carry efficient speedometers with their dials placed in such a position that they are visible to all passengers?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I am sending the hon. Gentleman a copy of the answer I gave to this question on 22nd May.

LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD (LOST PROPERTY).

Mr. LEONARD: asked the Minister of Transport the total amount of fees collected by the lost property office of the London Passenger Transport Board since its inception, the amount expended, and how allocated?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am informed by the board that during the period from.1st January, 1934, to 30th April, 1936, a total sum of £26,104 was received as lost property fees. Of this sum £12,171 has been allocated for the benefit of the staff of the board and the balance has been applied towards meeting the expenses of the Lost Property Office.

PARKING REGULATIONS.

Mr. COMPTON: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider the question of issuing an order prohibiting the parking of vehicles on the side of the road facing the traffic at all times of the day and night or, alternatively, of prohibiting under penalty the parking of vehicles at nighttime with their lights facing the oncoming traffic?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to Section 50 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, to paragraph 43 of the Highway Code, and to the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulation, 1936.

ROAD SCHEMES (GRANTS).

Mr. CROWDER: asked the minister of Transport whether all the highway authorities who were invited by Circular No.419, Roads, dated 5th February, 1935, to submit for consideration a list of the schemes with which they were in a position to proceed immediately with the assistance of grants from the Road Fund, have submitted such a list of schemes; and what number or proportion of the highway authorites have submitted a complete programme of work of the years 1935–40 and have received approval thereof?

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: asked the Minister of Transport (1) the amount o the payments, if any, which have been made out of the Road Fund during the year 1935–36 to highway authorities under grants for the purposes of the £100,000,000 five-year programme of road construction and improvement, and the amount estimated to be required for such payments out of the Road Fund during the financial year 1935–36;
(2) the estimated gross value to the nearest convenient date of the schemes submitted by highway authorities under the five-year programme, the estimated gross value of schemes approved for the purposes of grants from the Road Fund, and the highest and lowest percentages which will fall upon the Road Fund of the actual expenditure on those approved schemes?

Captain STRICKLAND: asked the Minister of Transport (1)

with reference to the recent Circular Letter, No. 466 (Roads), from his Department to highway authorities, whether he will specify the county areas which have been included in each of the groups A, B, and C, referred to in the circular, for the purposes of grants from the Road Fund at the respective percentages of 80, 75, and 66⅔ of the net cost of the works to be met by grant;
(2) whether the commencement of schemes of road construction and improvement which have been approved under the five-year programme of road works is being delayed in any cases owing to the unwillingness of the highway authorities concerned to provide out of their own resources the percentage of expenditure required from them as a condition of a grant from the Road Fund; and whether lie is willing, in certain circumstances, to increase the percentage of the Road Fund grant or to make a grant of the whole expense in order to secure the carrying out of works urgently required to accommodate increasing road traffic?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The total estimated cost of schemes included in the five-year programme submitted by highway authorities up to 30th April was £139,729,000. The total estimated cost of schemes approved for grant in the first year (i.e., 1935–36) was £26,650,000, in respect of which payments amounting to £1,654,323 were made out of the Road Fund for accounts actually presented. It is estimated that the corresponding figure for this year will be £4,820,000. The lowest and highest rates of grant are 33 per cent. and 85 per cent. respectively. In addition the Road Fund is to bear the entire cost of road works in the Crofter Counties of Scotland estimated at £4,250,000. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT particulars of the counties falling in the various grant groups. and I will have prepared for circulation tables showing the progress made in the submission and approval of schemes under the five-year programme. The programme submitted exceeds in magnitude any previously submitted, and at this stage to vary the grants on which it was based, far from accelerating, would by creating indecision retard progress.

Mr. CROWDER: Can the Minister give an assurance that the proposal to divert


the Road Fund to the Exchequer will not have any adverse effect on all these schemes?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already given that undertaking. There will be no adverse effect.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: But of what value is that undertaking, seeing that an undertaking was given when the Road Fund was instituted that it would be reserved for the roads?

RAILWAY FARES (LONDON AREA).

Mr. KELLY: asked the Minister of Transport whether any reply has been made to the appeal on behalf of young people for lower fares on the railways in the London area when. going to and from work?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir, and the reply was to the effect that jurisdiction in this matter rests not with me but with the Railway Rates Tribunal.

Mr. KELLY: Will the Minister use his good offices with the Railway Rates Tribunal in regard to these young people, who come to London at very early hours in the morning and wait about until their work starts?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would willingly use my good offices if I had any, but the tribunal are independent of me.

Following is the information:

GROUPING OF COUNTIES for purposes of grants towards the improvement of Trunk Roads.

Group A.


Aberdeen.
Lincoln(Parts of Kesteven).


Anglesey.



Angus.
Lincoln (Parts of Lindsey).


Argyll.



Ayr.
Moray and Nairn.


Banff.
Merioneth.


Berwick.
Montgomery.


Brecknock.
Monmouth.


Caithness.
Norfolk.


Cardigan.
Northumberland.


Carmarthen.
Orkney.


Cornwall.
Pembroke.


Cumberland.
Radnor.


Denbigh.
Ross and Cro-marty.


Dumfries.



Durham.
Roxburgh.


Ely, Isle of.
Rutland.


Flint.
Salop.

Glamorgan.
Stafford.


Hereford.
Stirling.


Huntingdon.
Sutherland.


Inverness.
West Lothian.


Kincardine.
Wigtown.


Kirkcudbright.
York (East Riding)


Lanark.



Lincoln (Parts of Holland)
York (North Riding)



Zetland.


Group B


Caernarvon.
Oxford.


Clackmannan.
Perth and Kinross.


Derby.
Selkirk.


Devon.
Somerset.


Dunbarton.
Suffolk (East)


East Lothian.
Suffolk (West).


Fife.
Westmorland.


Gloucester.
Wilts.


Leicester.
Worcester.


Midlothian.
York (West Hiding)


Northampton.



Nottingham.



Group C


Bedford.
Middlesex.


Berkshire.
Peebles.


Buckingham.
Peterborough, Soke of.


Bute.



Cambridge.
Renfrew.


Chester.
Southampton.


Dorset.
Surrey.


Essex.
Sussex (East).


Hertford.
Sussex (West).


Kent.
Warwick.


Lancaster.
Wight, Isle of.


London.

ELEVATED ROADS.

Mr. SIMMONDS: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet investigated the overway system of elevated roads over railroad tracks as a method of increasing urban road facilities; and whether he is now in a position to recommend its adoption by highway authorities?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would certainly approve the adoption of this system in any suitable case.

TRAFFIC SIGNALS.

Mr. SIMMONDS: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that traffic congestion takes place at many traffic-control lights owing to the stopping-places for tramway cars being too closely adjacent to these lights; and whether he will take steps to reduce this congestion?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: If my hon. Friend has in mind any particular places, I shall be pleased to have them reexamined by the special committee which thoroughly investigates, with all the interests concerned, the appropriate sites.

Mr. SIMMONDS: I will certainly do that, but is my right hon. Friend not aware that it very frequently happens that the whole advantage of the green light is wasted because of tram-cars loading or unloading, and is it not a very general problem, and not a particular one?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have no doubt that what my hon. Friend states is true in general, but I am unable to apply it to particular cases. If he can do so, I should be glad if he would let me have particulars.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Does not the main trouble arise when the stopping-places for vehicles are on the near side of the lights?

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (MYTON-ON- WALE).

Mr. TURTON: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the York Corporation, the statutory undertakers under the Electricity Acts, will not agree to supply Myton Hall, Myton-on-Swale, with electricity unless they are given a lump sum of £1,000 and a guarantee of a minimum rental of £50 for five years; that such a cost would be far more than the cost of a private installation; and whether he will take steps to prevent the declared purpose of the Electricity Acts to provide cheap electricity to country villages from being defeated by such excessive demands being made by the statutory undertakers upon those who wish to take advantage of the provisions of the Acts?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am asking the Commissioners to communicate further with the Corporation on the matter.

MINISTERS OF THE CROWN.

Mr. LEACH: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation to ensure that no person representing any political party in the State shall be

eligible for Cabinet or other Ministerial office unless such party represents at least 1 per cent. of the total electorate in the country?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): No, Sir.

Mr. LEACH: Does not the Prime Minister realise that if legislation of this character were in operation just now he would have to call upon two of his Cabinet Ministers to resign at once, and that four others would be in serious jeopardy?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think the hon. Member has made a miscalculation. He would have to double the figure—nearly—in his question before the effect he desires would be achieved.

Mr. LEACH: Will the Prime Minister facilitate legislation of this desirable character?

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that to do this might deprive the Government in the distant future of the very valuable services of the Clyde and the Communist groups?

Mr. MAXTON: We will look after that.

Mr. KELLY: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider combining the offices of Secretary of State for the Colonies and Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs in this House by one Minister?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. I am satisfied that the responsibilities attaching to these two offices and the diverse nature of their problems make it essential that each should continue to be entrusted to a separate Secretary of State.

Mr. KELLY: Although in the past that has been done, would it not be of advantage to make the experiment again, and so economise not only in money but in energy?

CHURCH OF ENGLAND (ENDOWMENT).

Mr. GALLACHER: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider introducing legislation to alter the present basis of endowment of the English Church and place the whole responsibility of its maintenance upon the members of that


Church, in order to free agriculture from the burdens now put upon it and so enable increased food production in the country?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. I would remind the hon. Member that legislation is now before the House designed to relieve agriculturists who are also tithe-payers.

Mr. GALLACHER: Is the Prime Minister aware that if the responsibility for maintaining the English Church were placed on its members, there would be more churches closed in this country than is the case in Russia?

Mr. TURTON: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that agriculture was the greatest problem of the Soviet system?

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE.

SUPPLY COMMITTEE.

Mr. CHORLTON: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he will give the names of the members of the supply committee; and whether their responsibility for the granting of priority of some supply for the requirements of one service over another extends to the allocation of orders to districts?

The MINISTER for the CO-ORDINATION of DEFENCE (Sir Thomas Inskip): It is not the practice to give the names of members of committees of the Committee of Imperial Defence. The answer to the second part of the question is that the question of the allocation of orders to districts might in some cases arise, in the exercise of the function of awarding priority.

CONTRACTS (KING'S NATIONAL ROLL.).

Captain GUNSTON: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether firms undertaking Government contracts under the rearmament programme are required to observe the condition of the King's Roll, by which 5 per cent. of the employés have to be disabled ex-service men; and whether it applies to additional labour required to carry out such contracts?

Sir T. INSKIP: I am advised that in undertaking Government contracts for the Service Departments under the rearmament programme, contractors are

required to observe the conditions of the King's National Roll, both in respect of their existing staff and of any additional staff engaged.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether, in placing contracts for the supply of material and equipment necessary for the defence scheme, he will consider the advisability of stipulating that employers with whom these contracts are placed shall give an undertaking that where additional labour is needed to carry out those contracts a fair percentage of ex-service men shall be employed?

Sir T. INSKIP: The fact that Government contracts are confined, save in exceptional circumstances, to employers enrolled on the King's National Roll, involves an obligation upon contractors to employ a minimum percentage of disabled ex-service men, normally not less than 5 per cent. of their total staff. In addition, where the additional labour needed is engaged through the Employment Exchanges, the exchanges, in accordance with their established practice in selecting men for consideration by employers, will give preference to ex-service men among those equally well qualified for employment. I do not think it is practicable to impose any further stipulations in the direction desired by my hon. Friend.

SPECIAL AREAS (GOVERNMENT WORK).

Mr. BOULTON: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether it is now the policy of the Service Departments to divert Government work to Special Areas from firms that have carried out such work in previous years and who have laid down the necessary plant and have skilled labour; and whether he will consider reversing this policy in view of the urgency of production and the harnessing of industry for Government work?

Sir T. INSKIP: No, Sir. The general practice of the Departments in dealing with firms who are regular suppliers is to proceed by competitive tendering. But the Government's plans necessitate an extension of output, and it is in this connection particularly, subject to the condition of other things being equal, that preference is given to a firm in the Special Areas and other areas suffering


from severe and prolonged unemployment. The point was explained at some length by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour in the Debate on 3rd March last.

Mr. BOULTON: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Sheffield metal trades are still short of work and that they have 50,000 people unemployed?

Sir T. INSKIP: Yes, Sir. If Sheffield is to be treated as a Special or distressed area, the considerations which I have mentioned will be borne in mind.

FOOD SUPPLY.

Captain GUNSTON: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence how the problem of food supply in time of war is to be divided between the sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence and Sir William Beveridge's sub-committee?

Sir T. INSKIP: The sub-committee which has been appointed, under my chairmanship, is examining all aspects of our food supply in time of emergency. They include, for example, home production, the protection of shipping, security in ports, distribution and transport questions, and reserve stocks. The reference to Sir William Beveridge's sub-committee is limited, at the present stage, to the consideration of arrangements for rationing the supply to the individual consumer in case of necessity, and of the preparatory steps which might be taken to enable such arrangements to be brought into force as quickly as possible.

Mr. THURTLE: If the right hon. Genleman is in any difficulty with regard to this matter, will he consult his right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), in view of his wide experience?

GERMAN AIR FORCE.

Mr. COCKS: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he can give the House any information respecting, or any estimate of, the present strength of the German Air Force?

Sir T. INSKIP: No published information relating to the strength of the German Air Force is available.

Mr. COCKS: Apart from the published information, have the Government any information which the right hon. Gentleman could usefully give to the House?

Sir T. INSKIP: I have a great deal of information the nature of which would require a very long statement to be made.

Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman trying to make the House believe that he does not know the strength of the German fighting forces when it has been published in various magazines from A to Z?

ROYAL PARKS (CINEMATOGRAPHY).

Mr. DAY: asked the First Commissioner of Works what replies he has given to the British film companies who have made application to his Department for the purpose of filming typical British incidents in the Royal parks at times when they are not generally open to the public; and in what circumstances these applications can be granted?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I have received no applications for permission to take films in the Royal parks when not open to the public, and I am not clear what the hon. Member means by "typical British incidents."

Mr. DAY: Are permits of this kind not granted in parks abroad for the local film companies, and cannot the right hon. Gentleman see his way to do the same?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not understand what "typical British incidents"are.

Mr. DAY: Does not the Minister realise that a typical British incident is a happening that would happen in the park in ordinary circumstances, and are there not British studios and British actors who would benefit?

Mr. CARTLAND: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the filming ought to be done by day rather than by night?

Mr. MATHERS: Is it not something connected with birds?

MARRIAGE LAWS.

Mr. LIDDALL: asked the Attorney-General whether he will consider asking


the Law Revision Committee to examine and consider the whole question of actions for breach of promise of marriage and their treatment and results at the hands of courts and juries?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I do not consider that the type of case to which the hon. Member refers is one which is suitable for the consideration of the Law Revision Committee, which deals with matters of a more technical and less controversial nature.

Mr. LIDDALL: Would it not be much better for a young couple to discover their incompatibility before marriage rather than to go through with the ceremony, and then be forced to go to the Divorce Court?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I would like notice of that question.

BRIBERY PREVENTION LEAGUE.

Mr. LIDDALL: asked the Attorney-General whether he has further considered the communications made to him regarding the intended action by the Hotels and Restaurants Association, the Champagne Association, the Wine Merchants' Union, or any other trade organisation, with a view to stopping the practice of paying corkage to wine waiters?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The only information I have is that contained in the printed matter which my hon. Friend sent me on 28th April, and in regard to which I gave an answer on 4th May. As stated in one of the documents which my hon. Friend sent to me, the matter is really one for the wine merchants themselves to determine.

AIR MAIL (LETTER, DELAY IN TRANSMISSION).

Sir ROBERT TASKER: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will cause inquiry to be made as to why 43 days were occupied by his Department in investigating a complaint from a British subject in connection with non-delivery of a letter from Berlin?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Walter Womersley): I understand ray hon. Friend to refer to

a case of delay in the transmission of some documents from Berlin by air mail. The complaint necessitated somewhat lengthy inquiry, which had to be pursued in Germany as well as here, but I am considering whether the inquiry could not have been expedited in some respects.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

INDIA (SPUN-SILK YARNS, DUTY).

Mr. GLEDHILL: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the recent increase in the duty on spun-silk yarns entering India from 25 per cent. ad valorem to 25 per cent. ad valorem plus 14 annas per pound without any preference in respect of yarns of British origin; and whether he proposes to make any representations on the matter to the Government of India?

Captain EUAN WALLACE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Yes, Sir. The recent increase in the import duty on these yarns was in accordance with the recommendation of the Tariff Board, and I fear that there are no grounds for requesting reconsideration at the present time.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Has my hon. and gallant Friend thought of asking whether the Government of India would consider giving some preference to British yarns?

Captain WALLACE: As my hon. Friend will know, the Government of India have denounced the Ottawa Agreement. We shall certainly bear the question in mind.

Mr. GLEDHILL: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that these extra duties make British prices quite impossible in competition?

SIAM (NAVAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS).

Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he can give particulars of the contracts for warship construction placed by the Siamese Government with foreign Governments; whether this country was given an opportunity to tender for such contracts; and, if so, what were the reasons for our not tendering or for our tenders not being accepted?

Captain WALLACE: The Siamese Government have placed no order for vessels


of war with foreign Governments since the beginning of 1935; but during that period they have ordered seven torpedo boats and two minelayers from an Italian firm, and two training sloops, two gunboats, four submarines and three patrol boats from firms in Japan. British firms were given opportunities of tendering for these contracts, and I can only assume that their failure to secure them was due to the lower prices quoted by their successful competitors.

FISHING INDUSTRY (FAXA BAY, ICELAND).

Mr. MARKLEW: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the agitation in Iceland for the inclusion of Faxa Bay in Icelandic territorial waters and the exclusion of British trawlers from this important fishing ground; and whether he will keep this matter in mind when considering any proposals for the renewal of a trade agreement with Iceland or any proposed revision of the regulations under the Sea Fishing Industry Act, 1933?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): Yes, Sir. The attention of His Majesty's Government has been drawn to a proposal before the Icelandic Althing that Faxa Bay should be included in Icelandic territorial waters. His Majesty's Minister at Copenhagen has been instructed to make it clear to the Icelandic Government that His Majesty's Government cannot recognise the right of the latter to close to British trawlers any waters outside the limits laid down in the Anglo-Danish Convention of 24th June, 1901, or the exercise of territorial jurisdiction over bays of this nature. As regards the second part of the question, all relevant considerations arising from this problem will be borne in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

POTATOES (IMPORT).

Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, owing to the heavy imports of main-crop potatoes, sales of home potatoes in parts of Scotland are at a standstill: and what steps

he is prepared to take to reduce the importation of main-crop potatoes?

Dr. BURGIN: I would remind my hon. Friend that the imports of potatoes are regulated month by month. Temporary market fluctuation may, however, be unavoidable. I understand that the quotas fixed for main-crop potatoes up to the end of May this year have not so far been fully used. As regards the second part of the question, the quotas for the months June to August are on a considerably lower level then those for earlier months.

MILK.

Mr. LEONARD (for Mr. ALEXANDER): asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the decline in the consumption of liquid milk in three out of the four months of 1936 for which figures are available, and that, but for the fact that there were 29 days in February this year, the figures for the complete four months would show a heavy decline in liquid consumption of milk compared to 1935; and to what extent this decline is due to the higher retail prices for milk on account of the successive increases in contract prices?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Ramsbotham): After making allowance for the extra day in February this year, sales of milk by wholesale for liquid consumption in the first four months of 1936 show a decline of approximately 1,000,000 gallons, or about half of one per cent. compared with the corresponding period in 1935. As to the last part of the question, the minimum appropriate retail prices were the same this year as last.

Mr. HOPKIN: Is it not true, too, that the farmer over this period has received from, 1½d. to 2d. less per gallon?

KEW GARDENS.

Mr. THORNE: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will arrange for a number of sun-shelters to be erected in Kew Gardens, as the three small shelters provided are not adequate for the number of persons attending the gardens during the slimmer months?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The suggestion will receive my right hon. Friend's careful consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

MACHINES, YORKSHIRE.

Mr. POTTS: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of coal-cutting and other machines in Yorkshire at the end of 1935, and the number introduced each year since 1930?

Number of machines in use below ground in Yorkshire during the
year 1930 to 1935


Year.
Coal-cutting machines.
Mechanical Conveyors.
Loaders.
Pneumatic Picks.
Drills for borings hot holes.


At Coal Face.
Elsewhere.
For coal getting.
For ripping, etc.


1930
…
…
955
366
84
67
651
401
995


1931
…
…
986
359
88
77
641
452
1,006


1932
…
…
916
353
90
83
528
537
1,098


1983
…
…
949
426
129
94
751
572
1,196


1934
…
…
1,012
523
195
94
943
725
1,307


1935
…
…
1,059
635
260
104
1,123
843
1,284

PENSIONS.

Mr. POTTS: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will consider authorising the introduction of legislation to initiate pensions at 60 years of age, costs to be debited upon the mining industry from the proceeds of coal, for the purpose of employing younger men?

Captain CROOKSHANK: No, Sir. I do not think that a proposal of the kind indicated, which would apparently involve a statutory imposition upon consumers of coal, would commend itself to Parliament. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, progress has already been made within the industry in the direction of voluntary pension schemes, and I hope that the example of South Wales will be widely followed.

Mr. POTTS: Having regard to the fact that thousands of people are bound to be out of work owing to the use of machinery and other causes, would it not be better to fix pensions for men of 60 and upwards on their going out of she industry, than to have men of 30 and 40 walking about unemployed?

COLLIERY ACCIDENT, PEMBROKESHIRE.

Major LLOYD GEORGE: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has any information to give the House concerning the disaster which occurred yesterday at the Loveston Colliery, Pembrokeshire.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Captain Crookshank): I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the number of coal-cutting and other machines in use during each of the years 1930 to 1935.

Following is the statement:

Captain CROOKSHANK: I regret to inform the House that seven men were drowned yesterday when an inrush of water occurred at the Loveston Colliery, Pembrokeshire. The water quickly rose and is now 150 yards up the 390-yard slant by which the workings are approached. It appears to have reached its maximum height and is being pumped out as quickly as possible. One body has so far been recovered, but it is not expected that it will prove possible to recover the others for several days. A full investigation of the cause of the accident will be made by His Majesty's inspectors as soon as possible. The House will, I feel sure, wish me to take this opportunity of expressing our deep sympathy with the families and friends of those who have lost their lives in these tragic circumstances.

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: Was there any inspection of the colliery before it was re-opened and, if not, why was it not done?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I shall re. quire notice of any question of that kind. The hon. Member and the House may be interested to know that the Deputy-Chief-Inspector is now at the colliery.

SCAFFOLDING COLLAPSE, CLACTON-ON-SEA.

Mr. THORNE: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department


whether he has received a report in connection with the collapse of scaffolding at the Clacton-on-Sea winter garden; and whether the collapse of the scaffolding was due to defective materials used or through a fault in erection?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): This accident, which occurred last Sunday, is under investigation, and I cannot at present make a statement as to the cause.

DRUG ADDICTS.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the report of the Opium Section of the League of Nations, stating that there were 30,000 confirmed drug addicts in this country; and whether he can make a statement on the matter?

Mr. LLOYD: My right hon. Friend's attention has been drawn to a statement in the Press that there are 30,000 drug addicts in this country. This statement is wholly unfounded. It purports to be based on a report of the Opium Section of the League of Nations Secretariat, but I am informed that this report contained no such statement. I may add that, according to the information available in the Home Office, the number of addicts known to the authorities does not exceed 700.

Mr. HENDERSON: Could the hon. Gentleman give the House any information as to whether this traffic is on the increase or otherwise?

Mr. LLOYD: Our information is that such traffic in this country is very small indeed, and in any case is confined to London; and even there it is very small.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Is it not rather unfortunate that people should always be running down and misrepresenting both this country and the affairs of the League of Nations?

NORTHERN IRELAND (MILITARY FORCES).

Sir PERCY HARRIS: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention

has been called to the extensive powers conferred by Regulation 22a, made under the Northern Ireland Civil Authorities Special Powers Act on the military authorities; and whether he can give the House information as to the extent of the additional responsibilities which may thereby be imposed on His Majesty's Forces stationed in Northern Ireland?

Mr. LLOYD: This regulation is made under an Act of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and is not a responsibility of my right hon. Friend.

Sir P. HARRIS: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it most improper that British forces should be used for civilian purposes; and could the attention of the Government of Northern Ireland be called to this matter?

Mr. LLOYD: The hon. Baronet is no doubt aware that the Legislature of Northern Ireland h rye power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Northern Ireland.

Sir P. HARRIS: Are not British forces under the control of His Majesty's Government, and should they be used for this purpose?

Sir RONALD ROSS: Is my hon. Friend not aware that armed forces can always be called in for the assistance of British subjects and for the assistance of the civil power; and is he also aware that members of the Liberal party wish to deprive people in Northern Ireland of this common right of citizenship?

Mr. SHINWELL: Is it coming to pass that Northern Ireland is setting up what amounts virtually to a form of dictatorship?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

PLAYING CA RDS (DUTIES).

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of dozen packs of playing cards charged with Customs Duty and Excise Duty, respectively, during the year ended 31st March, 1936?

The FINANCIAL. SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The approximate numbers of dozen packs of playing cards assessed to Customs Duty and Excise Duty respectively during the


year ended 31st March, 1936, are as follow:—

Dozen Packs.


Customs Duty
…
13,850


Excise Duty
…
466,000

TOBACCO DUTY (DRAWBACK).

Mr. LEONARD: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take immediate steps to adjust the rates of drawback on Empire and non-Empire tobaccos so that the mathematical ratio to the duty paid shall be, as nearly as possible, the same for Empire and non-Empire tobacco; and that, from now on, if one must have an advantage over the other arising from fractional calculations, it shall be in favour of Empire instead of non-Empire tobacco since, for the last five years, non-Empire tobaccos have enjoyed such an advantage over Empire tobaccos amounting, during the last financial year alone, to approximately £233,000?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: My right hon. Friend has noted the hon. Member's suggestion for consideration in the event of the rates of drawback being reviewed generally, but he is not prepared to introduce special legislation in the sense suggested.

Mr. LEONARD: Will the Financial Secretary keep in mind the fact that this matter has been before the Treasury for two years; and will they expedite any consideration that is to be given to it?

Mr. MORRISON: The matter is being considered now.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

INSTRUCTIONAL CENTRES.

Mr. W. JOSEPH STEWART: asked the Minister of Labour whether anything has been done towards establishing in the Special Areas intermediate and residential centres which would be open to all young men over the age of 18 and would cater specially for those between the ages of 18 to 21, where time could be given to practical instruction of a non-vocational type?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): It is proposed shortly to establish five non-residential centres in the Special Areas at which young men

can attend daily for a graduated course of general educational and practical instruction coupled with physical training and games. Cases which require it may also receive special medical and dental treatment. Arrangements are being made for the acquisition of two sites in South Wales, two in Tyneside and one in the centre of the Durham coal-mining area, and it is hoped shortly to begin the work of erection.

Mr. HOPKIN: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say where the centres in South Wales will be established?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: One will be outside Pontypridd and one at New-bridge, in Monmouthshire.

Mr. SIMMONDS: Would it not be well to establish residential centres in areas where there are vacancies for employment?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: That, I think, is another question.

ASSISTANCE (DEPENDENT PARENTS).

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: asked the Minister of Labour whether in framing the new regulations under the Unemployment Acts, he will, in collaboration with the Minister of Health, bear in mind the desirability that parents of families who are not entitled to unemployment benefit and are entirely supported by their children and at present receive no grant from public assistance committees shall, in future, no matter what the income of their children may be, be entitled to a small weekly cash grant to obviate the necessity of parents having to depend on their children for personal expenses?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: My right hon. Friend has in mind the point raised by my hon. Friend, and the various problems which arise in relation to it.

STATISTICS.

Mr. POTTS: asked the Minister of Labour the total number of insured persons under the Unemployment Insurance Acts for the years 1934 and 1935, inclusive, and the number of adult insured persons under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, giving males and females separately, for 1934 and 1935?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:


The estimated numbers of insured persons are ascertained once a
year in July, on the basis of the number of unemployment books exchanged. The following table
shows the estimated numbers of insured persons in Great Britain at July 1934, and July,
1935:


—
1934.
1935.


Estimated number of insured persons at beginning of July, exclusive of persons insured under
the Special Schemes:




Men aged 21–64
7,839,000
7,982,000


Young men aged 18–20
857,000,
820,000


Boys aged 16 and 17
468,000
450,000


Boys aged 14 and 15
—*
516,000


Women aged 21–64
2,353,000
2,393,000


Young women aged 18–20
655,000
625,000


Girls aged 16 and 17
368,000
357,000


Girls aged 14 and 15
—*
410,300


Estimated numbers insured under the Special Schemes for the Banking and Insurance
Industries:




Men aged 18–64†
100,000
101,000


Boys aged 16 and 17
2,600
3,000


Boys aged 14 and 15
—*
800


Women aged 18–64†
45,100
47,000


Girls aged 16 and 17
2,300
2000


Girls aged 14 and 15
—*
700


Total (including Special Schemes)
12,690,000
13,708,000


*Juveniles aged 14 and 15 were not insurable at July, 1934.


†Separate figures for persons aged 18–20 years are not available in tin case of those insured under the Special Schemes.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (PRIVATE BUSINESS).

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 6, Private Business set down for consideration at half-past Seven of the Clock this evening, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, may be taken after half-past Nine of the Clock."—[The Prime Minister.]

LIEUT.-COLONEL J W. KYNASTON.

Petition of Lieut.-Colonel John William Kynaston, for an inquiry into his allegations against the Army Council; to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Special Areas Reconstruction (Agreement) Bill, without Amendment.

Cotton Spinning Industry Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Bedwellty Urban District Council Bill [Lords,]

Winchester Corporation Bill [Lords,]

Swansea and District Transport Bill [Lords,] without Amendment.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Tuesday, 9th June, and to be printed. [Bill 129.]

COTTON SPINNING INDUSTRY BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 130.]

TRIAL OF PEERS (ABOLITION OF PRIVILEGE) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 131.]

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION BILL.

Order for Third Beading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

3.43 p.m.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That." to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
realising the urgent need for raising the school-leaving age, this House regrets that a Bill for this purpose should be largely nullified by provisions calculated to encourage the entry of children into industry whilst still of school age.
Before coming to the main subject of this reasoned Amendment, I should like to say that I think in future years the most remarkable period in the history of the passage of this Bill will be taken to be about half-past ten last night when the great denominational controversy passed through the Report stage without a Division in less than a quarter of an hour. That represents a new perspective among all the denominations and interests which have been parties to this conflict, and I think the President will agree that in this settlement in Committee on certain occasions the Opposition made its contribution.
Coming to the main part of the Bill, the Clauses dealing with the raising of the school age, I notice that there is a great peculiarity about the first seven Clauses. The first raises the school age to 15, and the remaining six arrange for a series of exemptions by which practically any child who can obtain an ordinary job will leave school at the same age as he does to-day. This, of course, is why one hon. Member opposite was able to point out yesterday that at the last Election supporters of the Government were able to say they were going to raise the school-leaving age, and to point out in the same breath that this would be accompanied by the right to exemption for what is called beneficial employment, which means any ordinary, average job. That justifies the description that we have given of the Bill. It is not an Education Bill, but a juvenile employment Bill. I doubt whether there

is any other case of a Bill being introduced and carried through in the teeth of the almost unanimous opposition of those who will have to administer it. From the very beginning local education authorities have told the Government that these exemption Clauses would render the Bill practically meaningless, and all the discussions in Committee and on Report have not shaken them in that view. Indeed, I notice that in the Committee every Member who has been a chairman of a local education authority, with perhaps only one exception, pointed out that these exemption Clauses would practically sterilise the operation of the Bill.
There was one feature of the discussions in Committee which I found very remarkable. In the Second Reading discussion we confined ourselves, as it happened, almost entirely to the effect that the exemption Clauses would have in urban areas. In Committee one or two Members dealt with these results in the counties, particularly the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) as chairman of the county education committee. They pointed out that what was bound to happen in the counties would be that the exemption Clauses of the Bill would have to be administered by a number of local sub-committees, each sub-committee perhaps covering the area of the school attendance officer. The central local education committee may indeed view a Bill if this kind from its educational aspect, but local sub-committees will take local rather than educational considerations into account, with the result that exemptions will be almost indiscriminate. That explains why it is that in counties such as Cornwall, which started to raise the school-leaving age with great hopes, but in which, in fact, the exemptions have amounted to over 90 per cent., the whole effort has really petered out. There is Po reason to suppose that the results in the future will be any different from those which experience has already proved them to be.
Really our Amendment is directed to one point of the Bill, and, indeed, the characteristic of the Bill is the question of exemptions, and I wish to deal with the central argument which the President has used to justify these exemptions, and to predict what the results


will be. Broadly, he has said that, after the schools have been reorganised, the fourth year will be so attractive and valuable to the children, that parents will voluntarily leave them at school in increasing proportions, until, I suppose, eventually the exemptions will practically die away by the process of exhaustion. The President has entirely failed to take into account the enormous pull which is going to be exerted in coming years, much more strongly than in past years, in the opposite direction. We are now on the eve of a period when there will be a shortage of juvenile labour, and, from the point of view of employers, an increase in the demand for children of 14, and when the wages of children of 14 are probably going to rise. In these circumstances the immediate temptation to parents will be greater than it is at present. Undoubtedly, if all the parents were in the same position they might be willing to accept the sacrifice which the Bill, as it is at present framed, would impose upon them, but even the President begins on the assumption that 50 per cent. of the children will be exempted. What right has he to assume that, if you start with 50 per cent., the proportion will stop there? The parents of the remaining 50 per cent. will see their neighbours' children going into employment and bringing back wages of 12s., 15s. and £1 a week—wages which will get higher probably in the years to come. The very fact that those children are in employment will give them a. kind of superiority over children who are not in jobs, and in those circumstances there will be competition and even jealousy among parents in respect of these exemptions. The right hon. Gentleman has no right whatever to base his Bill on the expectation that exemptions will diminish when there is every reason to suppose that they will increase.
That is the central tragedy which a Bill of this kind now brings before us. One must take into account, what has become clear in the Committee discussions, that the phrase "beneficial employment" is euphemistic to the point of being misleading. Beneficial employment, the President himself says, means any suitable job; any job that is suitable according to the accepted ideas of the area. That means the average job in the particular area. The Bill therefore

means that any child who can show that he can get an ordinary job has, under the Bill, the right to exemption, as the President himself said yesterday on one or two occasions. This is the tragedy. What does the Bill in its present form really mean? It means that the Government and the President have had during this year an opportunity of carrying through a reform such as no Government have ever had before. The President has not always had good fortune, but on this occasion he came to the Board of Education in a fortunate hour. All the difficulties which befell the administration of the Act of 1929 have settled themselves. The denominational issue, As a result, not of the particular action of politicians but of the interval of time, is on the point of being settled by general consent. The great employers of labour with few exceptions indicated that they preferred children of 15 to 14, and even in the Debates in the House of Lords it was clear from their tone that the House of Lords had practically led us to expect that they would now pass a Bill.
There has never been such an opportunity. The final result is that the Government have, in fact, spoilt the opportunity and spoilt the Bill. They have introduced a Bill which nominally raises the school age but which introduces exemptions which past experience has shown, when once they are loaded like an incubus on an education authority, take about 20 years to get rid of. The Government have used the chance to bring in a Bill, the full fruition of which they practically postpone for a generation. They postpone a great step forward in civilisation, when with a little more firmness in following the advice of their supporters on local education authorities, it could, in fact, have been taken to-night.
In dealing with the important point which the President made that the fourth year would be attractive, I would point out that in that contention he has not been supported by any teacher who took part in the discussions in Committee, whether on our side of the Committee or on the opposite s de. Education is a thing of the spirit. It depends upon the keenness, zest and willingness which the children bring into the class. How can there be any keenness or zest in any class when the children who remain see


their fellow-members, other boys and girls, leaving at the end of each term, and who themselves are looking towards the door? I was very much struck by a description of the result which was given by one who, I suppose, is the oldest teacher in the House, the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville). He pointed out that a class is an entity, and that the value of the class as an instrument for character building depended on using the strongest spirit in the class, and that that was not possible if the strongest spirit was leaving at the end of the term.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I think the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) was directed to pupils leaving during the term and not to those leaving at the end of the term.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: indicated assent.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The hon. Member's argument may have been dealing with a particular Amendment relating to the middle of a term, but obviously the same argument applies to children leaving at the end of a term. I would here ask the Minister whether he will clear up one point. What does he envisage as the number of new classrooms that an education authority will need to build in a new school? Take a simple case. Suppose that there is a school with 60 children in each school year. You divide the children into two classes of 30 each, one class for the more academic and one class for the less academic. There will be two classrooms kept for children between 11 and 12, two for those between 12 and 13 and two for those between 13 and 14. How many classrooms will the authority have to build for the children of 14 to 15 years? If the right hon. Gentleman's assumption is correct his answer ought to be that the authority should build two. It will be interesting to see whether the right hon. Gentleman's theoretical prophecies work out in practice.
I now come to a point which we discussed to some extent on the Second Reading of the Bill. What is the reason for introducing these exceptions? Everyone knows that the reason is to avoid maintenance allowances. After having heard all the discussions, I say that the attempt

to avoid maintenance allowances is a piece of the most utterly selfish class legislation. I say that for this reason, and it is an argument that has not been answered: As a matter of fact maintenance allowances for educational purposes are given to the entire middle class; they are given to the great bulk of Income Tax payers. They are received by about four-fifths of the Members of this House, I should imagine. What is the position? Under the Income Tax Acts there is an exemption allowance of £60 a year per child up to 16 years of age. If the child remains at school or in any educational institution after 16 years the educational allowance is continued because the child is still beng educated. That is a maintenance allowance. It is 4s. 9d. in the £ on 260, which comes to rather more than 5s. a week, and is more than the maintenance allowance included in the Labour Government's Bill of 1929.
Of course the parents of elementary school children do not pay Income Tax. But they pay taxation. A man with £3 a week pays a larger percentage of his income in taxation than the man with £500 a year. He pays through Customs and Excise. If you are to put these people into the same position as the Income Tax payers, the comfortable classes, the only way in which you can do it is to give them maintenance allowances. A system which provides maintenance allowances for all the better-off sections of the community and refuses allowances to the workers, is a system based upon stark naked class legislation.
We come back to the question which has been asked all the time. The Bill refers to "beneficial employment "Beneficial to whom? That is the central question. It has been shown that the employment might occasionally be beneficial to parents whose immediate necessities are opposed to the ultimate interests of their children. It might be beneficial to that class of employers who want small fingers to fit into their machines. But the test of an Education Bill is the benefit to the child, and there is no factory or mine or mill which is so beneficial to a boy or girl of 14 as a good school.

4.7 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: I make no apology for doing what I expect we shall almost all be doing this afternoon, and that is dealing mainly with the question


of exemptions. Whatever difference of view we may have about it—and we do differ—most of us will agree that it is rather a pity that our correct procedure, as interpreted by Mr. Speaker yesterday, prevented us from expressing our opinion on some very important matters connected with the question of exemptions without having to record a vote against the Third Reading of the Bill. I wonder whether hon. Members have seen a rather interesting leading article in the "Times" newspaper, which said that the part of the Bill which puts up the school age to 15 is still likely to prove a dead letter unless the exemption Clauses are modified, and after drawing attention to the proposal not to give exemptions until 14½, and the other suggestion not to give exemption until 14 plus one term, said this:
No pledges so far as a careful reading of the documents on the subject concerned can show, are inconsistent with the acceptance of this Amendment
One does not know the view of the Minister on either of those Amendments, but if they had been in order—

Mr. STANLEY: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that one Amendment, the 14 years and 6 months Amendment, was in order in Committee and was fully discussed. I then gave my views and the Committee voted on the Amendment.

Sir F. ACLAND: I had forgotten that for a moment. That is quite true. The Minister, of course, might have taken a different view after reconsideration, but I am not suggesting that he would have done so. It is a fact that if the lesser of the two Amendments, that for adding a term to the 14 years, had been in order for incorporation in the Bill, there would have been a real chance, I do not say of an agreed settlement of a difficult question, but of a fairly friendly settlement of what I am afraid is bound to be, with the Bill in its present form, a matter of uncertainty, doubt, difficulty and distraction to those who have to administer the Bill. In the Standing Committee we had what were almost sneers now and again at people who were called educationists, and it was suggested rather that they valued education without any real perspective and without seeing that it is not the most important thing in life, not the most important prepara-

tion for life. My experience, as an education administrator, of those who are associated with this business, is that they are not really concerned in pushing up the school age regardless of consequences or common sense, but rather that they want, in whatever they do, to have a workmanlike job to do in a workmanlike way.
The clearest and ino4 elementary point which all of us will have to make about this Bill is: If you are going to make provision for continuing education up to 15 it is desirable that you should have some certainty of a reasonable number of children up to that age who are to be taught. It is going; to be very difficult, if we have to provide what ought to be provided in the senior school—classrooms, gymnasia, school gardens, large playgrounds and so on—and to employ the teachers, if we are not to have any certainty as to the number of children to be taught. I am not going to read all the letters I have ever received on the subject, as an hon. Friend of mine did on the Tithe Bill, hut there is one short letter that I would like to read. It is from an education administrator, not in my area, from one who is not at all of my politics, a solicitor who just does his best to get the work done. He says:
I personally, am neither against exemptions nor in favour of maintenance allowances, except in a very limited sense, but if the extra year is to be of the least use (except to increase the number of employed teachers and provide a lot of pretty light and very unprofitable jobs) we must have at least a known number of pupils for each term and a fair number for all terms of the new year.
The heavy expenditure on new schools far more elaborately equipped than hitherto is unjustifiable from the economic point of view, unless the places are to be reasonably filled.
You may not quite agree, but this Bill in its present form seems to me to break every rule of sound legislation as surely as Snow-den's beer tax broke every sound principle of taxation. It involves heavy expenditure, gives little benefit to the children and will in practice create confusion and irritation.

Mr. STANLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that writer's views on the beer legislation? If not, why does he quote the letter?

Sir F. ACLAND: Because the writer happens to be a Conservative and happens to disagree with me about beer legislation, I do not see why I should not quote


his very sensible remarks about education. I rather agree with him about the beer, but I will not go into that question now. An hon. Gentleman above the Gangway has repeated almost verbatim the point I put in Committee twice—without getting an answer—as to the difficulty of buildings provision in the two-stream school. Either you have to provide two classrooms for the last year, or one or none. If you provide two, there will inevitably be a waste of space and of teachers; if you provide one you will have to bring together at the top those who have been in two different and divergent streams all the way up; and if you provide none then those who do stay beyond the age of 14 will be marking time and will not be able to have a separate teacher for a proper continuation of their courses.
One finds it very difficult to prophesy how the Bill will work. It may be that some of us are pessimistic, but one thing is certain, and that is that at the start there will be a great deal of diversity. That is inevitable, because the chances of employment differ in different localities. I think the diversity will be partly because different. authorities will tend, even after all the precision we have tried to put into the Bill, to read the Measure rather differently. The fact is, and I hope the House will agree with me in this statement, that almost any employment is beneficial compared with no employment, but very little employment would be beneficial compared with an extra year at school, if the school is teaching what it ought to teach and what we hope it will teach under the reorganisation scheme.
The defect, I think, will be that some authorities will tend to say: "The only question for us is whether a job is better than none "while others will tend to say: "Will it be a greater benefit in our district for children to get jobs at 14, or should they have an extra school year and get the same jobs a year later after they have had the benefit of their year's training" Although there may be that divergence at the beginning there will, I think, be a tendency to get more uniformity, which is in itself desirable, later, and that will be brought about by the gradual extension—as has been found to be the case by the authorities who tried it—of the exemption system in its practical working.
Many authorities started with the best intentions, but they found after a year or so that they were granting something like 80 to 90 per cent. of exemptions. There is no possibility in those circumstances of making any special provision for those over 14, which is such an essential part of the whole scheme based on the Hadow Report. I am afraid that the best children will go, because jobs will be offered to them; the children of the poorest parents will go because they will try to get any job to which a wage is attached, and we shall have only a small residue left, who will inevitably tend to mark time and not get the extra advantage from the additional year, in which really they could learn very much and get from it what would prepare them for the career that is in front of them.
I now come back to the point which my right hon. Friend has made and which I made in Committee, and that is that the actual work of judging the applications will have to be done by sub-committees, which will see inevitably the advantages of a job more clearly than the advantages of an extra year's schooling, and whose recommendations the main committee will have to accept. The sub-committee will not go on working and making their recommendations if they are turned down by the main committee before whom the recommendations go. I have received a few words from a director of education in a rural county, couched in moderate language. He says:
One of the difficulties that I foresee is that the district committee will be fairly representative of the agricultural element, and it is our experience that the farmers are not always as considerate as they might be of the value of education; on the contrary, they do not ignore the possibility of obtaining cheap labour
I am afraid that there will be that tendency in the rural sub-committees, at any rate, and the exemptions, therefore, will be many, and the difficulty of organising anything at all useful in the. last school year will be intensified. It is difficult to prophesy, and prophesying is always dangerous, but I think we shall find in a great number of areas that more than half the children will go at the end of term in which they reach the age of 14, which is the earliest time, and there will be a fairly considerable proportion going in each of the two terms following.
It will make it intensely difficult, administratively, to organise what should be a four years course in the senior schools, which one has always looked forward to ever since one became acquainted with what the senior schools can do. The children get from these schools much more than they can get from any ordinary village school, and it may be that the children in these days will have such influence with their parents that they will insist upon keeping on at school. I hope that that will be so, but I am afraid that that will not be so. From what one has seen of senior schools, one has hoped for much, with the prospect of one extra year at school from 14 to 15, from the children's keenness and interest, and feeling of responsibility, the feeling that the training they are getting is something really valuable and something that will decide their future life and career. When that feeling has developed for the first time, one realises that if only there was a certainty of getting a fair proportion of the children through the final year, that final year would be worth any two of the preceding years, but if they want to get out of the school door as soon as they are 14, it will be a very great pity. I think a great chance has been lost by the Government in what I think was an unwise election pledge.
On other matters I think the Minister has been fortunate and very skilful. He has done extremely wisely and well in his handling of the denominational question. It is remarkable what success he has achieved. A good deal of that is due to him personally, and I should like to congratulate him warmly upon it. The fires of educational controversy have died down a good deal in the country, and it is a good thing. That fact has helped the Minister, and he will readily acknowledge it. I should like to tell the House a little story which illustrates how these things really work out in practice. In a village which I know there is a good deal of denominational controversy. There is a Wesleyan school and a Church school in the village, one directed and fostered by a Methodist alderman of the county council, and the other by an equally militant canon of the Church of England. They both canvass among the parents to get children into the rival schools and, in a gentlemanly way, do all they can to

fan the flames of religious discord. The curious result is that nearly all the children who go to the Church day school go to the Wesleyan Sunday school, while nearly all the children who go to the Wesleyan day school. go to the Church Sunday school, the reason being that they come in for two treats a year instead of only one. I think that is a good omen for the way that these things present themselves where the parents and the children are concerned. I should like, in conclusion, to extend my very warm congratulations to the Minister for the courteous but firm way in which he handled us in the Committee and in the House yesterday, and I hope that the Bill will have better fortune than I fear it will.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. PIGKTHORN: I do not think that it is entirely clear beyond question that from every point of view the most useful educational reform at this moment is to increase what may be called the number of child school hours. But it has been assumed almost everywhere that that is the step that should be taken now and that that step ought to be taken at once. No one in the Second Beading Debate or throughout the Debates on the Bill—it was perhaps difficult owing to the rules of order—has argued what education is, what it can be or what it ought to aim at, or what alternatives there might be to the plan of simply letting the tap run on a little longer by continually raising the age. These things have not been discussed. There seems a general willingness to assume, at any rate on the opposite side of the House, that education is definable somewhat on the lines adopted by Disraeli, I think, who was once challenged in this House to say what an archdeacon was. He explained that an archdeacon was a man who performed archidiaconal functions. When he was further challenged to say what archidiaconal functions were, he explained that he believed them to be the functions performed by archdeacons.
There seems to be an inclination on the other side of the House to assume that education is the stuff provided by education authorities, and I am afraid that in practice it is in many minds what is provided by the local education authorities and the National Union of Teachers, in the main. These bodies and the


organised representatives of them have been, as we have been continually told, almost unanimously against exemptions. Upstairs, in Committee, some resentment was expressed when they were compared to admirals, and it was suggested that unanimity among admirals on having more battleships was not a conclusive argument. That was considered to be rather an offensive comparison. I do not know why admirals should not be regarded as a respectable body of men. I hope that it will not be considered offensive if I compare those bodies to cobblers, who are respectable, and traditionally radical. Cobblers are inclined to think that there is nothing like leather. I would not go further and compare them—if I may allude to what I believe is called syllabus religion—to silversmiths, who took the same line as cobblers, with the added feeling that
this our craft is in danger to be set at nought
I do not think that it would be fair to say that teachers in general and local education authorities are interested in education mainly in that sense of the word "interest" It would not be fair for supporters of exemption to make that sort of point in a controversial spirit, but it has been thought fair for attackers of exemption to point it out. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E, J. Williams) said yesterday:
I wonder whether the education authority would have the right to consider the educational aspect before granting an exemption
He went on, rather amusingly, to explain what he thought was an educational aspect; and the educational aspect, apparently, was the effect upon the number of teachers employed. The hon. Member proceeded to say:
I think that is vital. The problem confronting us in the secondary schools is the number of teachers that we have in proportion to the diminishing number of pupils.…Unless the education authority has prior rights over the juvenile unemployment authority, they may so denude the school of pupils that they will have a substantial residue of staff"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th May, 1936; cols. 1912–13, Vol. 312.]
On what I may call the cobbler and silversmith principle and the perfectly respectable professional deformation—every profession has a professional deformation—I have no doubt that all hon. Members think politics a great deal more important than politics are, and it is not

unreasonable for those associations to think that education, especially the sort of education which they exist to provide, is much more important and far more above criticism than it is.
Of the main arguments that have been used against the exemption principle, the first and the most important is that it puts the parent under an economic duress. It is difficult to define exactly what the word "duress" may be supposed to mean in such a connection. Certain authorities whom I have been able to consult, including the head masters of great secondary schools in both prosperous and unprosperous areas, have unanimously assured me that many parents wish their children to leave secondary schools at the earliest possible age, even in cases where economic duress cannot be said in any reasonable sense of the words to exist. Economic duress may be said to exist in all cases in the sense that everybody wants to have more money and to spend less. I had an acquaintance who said that he could not live on £6,000 a year. [An HON. MEMBER: "He ought to have died"] Somehow or other he persuaded the world that he ought to get more, but I am not suggesting that that is a good plan or even assuming that any one should be able to adopt it. There is always economic duress in that sense.
If, however economic duress is to be taken as meaning compulsion, I could not withhold my sympathies from parents who are under that sort of compulsion, but I think it fair to say that very many, perhaps most, of the parents who are doubtful about the value of the additional year at school are not entirely controlled by motives of economic duress. Indeed, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) practically said as much yesterday, when he told us that the more prosperous we were as a nation, and the more work was available, the less substance there would be in the Bill. But surely the more prosperous we are the less unemployment there will be, and the higher will wages be, and the less reasonable will it be to say that economic duress is causing parents to doubt the usefulness of this additional year.
The second main argument against exemptions has been on these lines. It is said that the Government are either trying to play a sort of three-card trick


or else that they have been guilty of a piece of imbecility in their exemption proposals, and that, one way or the other, either knowingly or unknowingly, the point of the exemptions is to nullify the raising of the school-leaving age. It is argued that that is the intention of the Government; and, that being the intention, it is also argued that the local education authorities will not be able to resist the pressure from the parents. Again there has been evidence to the contrary from the other side. The right hon. Gentleman who opened our Debate to-day has been in two minds on this subject—in fact in three minds. On the Second Reading he said that experience showed that once the principle of exemption was admitted it became increasingly difficult to get parents to give it up. If that were so, from being increasingly difficult it would become infinitely difficult and once exemptions started, it would never be possible to get rid of them. But exemptions having in fact been got rid of in relation to the previous raising of the age, the right hon. Gentleman observed the logical difficulty in which he had placed himself, and to-day he says that all experience shows that exemptions go on for 20 years. In between those two statements, while we were considering the Bill in Committee, he told us that he looked forward to a situation in which the number of exemptions would diminish.
There have been other voices from his latitude arguing along that line. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Marklew) said he believed it to be the desire of the Government that there should be as few exemptions as possible, and the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) said that paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Clause 2 proved that the Government did not wish or intend that exemptions should be granted adlib. I do not think it can be supposed that there is anything fraudulent or even imbecile about those professions. Nor do I think the arguments which has been used about the local education authorities have always been valid. The by-law authorities as a matter of course—because they would not be called by-law authorities if they were not exceptional—are no fair analogy of what will happen when the rule, with the regulation about beneficial employment, is applied all over

the country. Nor is the arithmetic which has been used with reference to the by-law authorities altogether fair. People say that under tee by-law authorities there are 90 per cent. of exemptions. I hope I may be corrected if I am wrong in thinking that if all the children under by-law authorities got exemptions on the day before their fifteenth birthday, it would enable hon Gentlemen opposite to say that there had been 100 per cent. of exemptions. That seems to be an argument which can hardly be used by a candid soul if he has himself ever reached the top standard it, an elementary school.
The fact is, so far as I can inform myself, that under the by-law authorities the leaving age has been put up from 14.3 to 14.6, and I he estimated effect of the Bill before us. an estimate which is at least as respectable as that of private Members opposite, is that it will put that figure up to 14.9. It seems to be an abuse of language to say that that is not raising the school age, or even to say that it is raising the age with 90 per cent., or even 50 per cent., of exemptions. In any case, all these arguments about the ill-intentions of the Government and the weakness of the local education authorities only represent another way of saying that the parents do not want the extra year. The right hon. Gentleman opposite told us earlier that this last year at school was when the children were fairly mature—when they had reached the age of 14 or 15. I noticed that yesterday when we were discussing the Bill on Report they were described as young children, but when we were at another point they were described as mature children. We were told that they could not be expected to make much use of the last year unless they entered on it with willingness and zest. That is no doubt true; but surely the way to secure that is to have schools which the children will, less and less, wish to leave before their fifteenth birthday.
The truth is that many people on the other side, and even some on this side—those with a professional deformation—seem to think the proper authority for all the looking after of all children is the local educational authority. Indeed, I think it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) who said that the natural protector of the child was the


local education authority. The hon. Member for the University of Wales (Mr. E Evans) said that we must not consider the particular child but the child generally. I suggest that the characteristic of the child is to be particular. Obviously, this House cannot consider every individual child, but it is its business to try to see that children are considered in the largest number of categories and as nearly as possible personally. Another hon. Member—an hon. Member on this side—said that every teacher must be against exemptions, and still another hon. Member on this side declared that between the ages of 14 and 15 the children should be under the supervision of those who were responsible for the educational, cultural and spiritual direction of their young lives. It seems to me wrong to suggest that local education authorities or the National Union of Teachers, or any other body, professional or administrative, is responsible for the child to that extent.

Mr. COVE: Or the Church managers.

Mr. PICKTHORN: Or the Church managers or anybody else. To suggest that they are responsible to that extent is altogether wrong. The word "responsibility" is used in a very irresponsible way. We talk about responsible Government having developed in this country, but there is one sense in which the opposite has happened. If responsibility means that when things go wrong you suffer for it, then there was far more responsibility in the days when unsuccessful politicians invariably lost their heads than there is now when all that happens to the unsuccessful politician is that he has to leave the Cabinet for 12 or 15 months and not always for that. Surely the people who are responsible in this sense are the parents. They are the people who suffer, in a way in which no teacher however devoted can even begin to suffer, if the child is any way badly brought up or badly educated, or if he misses the kind of education which he ought to have.
I suggest—I hope not controversially anti still less offensively—that if there is a real danger to-day, it is the danger of the development of a sort of educational sacerdotalism which would be worse than the old priest-craft because it would not be tied by responsibility to a theological system. And, in fact, it is

true that parents have other reasons beside the economic reasons for doubting the usefulness of the extra year at school.

Mr. MARKLEW: I should have, if the hon. Member were the master.

Mr. GALLACHER: Did the hon. Member's parents doubt it?

Mr. PICKTHORN: I could answer all those questions, but I am anxious not to take up more time than is necessary, and I would prefer to pursue my argument. Shortly before his death I had the advantage of discussing this question with one of the most distinguished of His Majesty's Inspectors who was in every way most liberal—with a small "1"—most devoted to children and education, and in my judgment one of the ablest men I have ever known. He made some written notes of our conversation and I am able to quote what lie said. He said that beyond the age of 11,
less and less could the great bulk of children get what they really needed educationally within the four walls of the school. Even if well equipped senior schools on Hadow lines were available, he doubted whether they would meet the requirements of children of 14 to 16, from whom the more academically-minded children had already been subtracted at the ago of 11
That is a point which has been dropped out in most of our discussions. My adviser went on to say that he thought a better thing than raising the school age to 15 would be to raise it to 16 or 16½ with some sort of half-time or sandwich system. It would, however, be out of order to go into that aspect of the question now. The hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) and the Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl), and others I think, told us that, as matters stand in the schools, a considerable proportion of the children are marking time if they stay on for the extra year; but surely as the schools get better and better more and more children will want to stay in them and surely that is the way in which this ought to be done. A director of education who has written to me frequently on this matter and who is entirely against exemptions uses this sentence:
The children who do well at school are (strange to say) generally reluctant to leave


and the school-leaving age is gradually raising itself. I believe myself that when re-organisation in my own area is complete it will be a real advantage to the children to remain at school until 15 and that that fact will be recognised by managers, parents and the children themselves.
That is the belief of one of the keenest and ablest opponents of the exemption principle, and, if that be so, it seems to me that the whole case for exemptions is given. If it be admitted that the school-leaving age is, in any case, gradually raising itself because the schools are improving so much, surely that is the best way to raise the school-leaving age, if it is agreed that raising the age is the right thing to do.

Mr. LECKIE: May I ask my hon. Friend whether the opinion which he has quoted is from an industrial or a rural district?

Mr. PICKTHORN: It is from a large county. I had some other things to say, but my argument has taken longer than I anticipated, and before I conclude I want to make what I think is the short point on the whole of this question. Quite clearly, whatever age you fix as the school-leaving age, there must be a year of marginal utility in the case of every child. You may say that the child had better remain on at school until 16 or until 18 or until 20, but there must come a point at which there is a year of marginal utility. When that year comes, and there is a reasonable doubt whether the child should stay another year or not, who is to decide? Is it to be decided by a majority of this House two or three years beforehand; or by the local education authority? I hope I may be allowed to be amused by the way in which the moral character of the local education authority fluctuates.
Hon. Members when speaking of local authorities upstairs always said that they have had a long experience of education administration. I think 28 years was the smallest figure mentioned: I could not compete, and did not discuss this part of the subject; but when thinking of himself primarily as an M.P. each Member considered that the local education authority was the weak point, but the same speaker when thinking of himself as a member of the local education authority

spoke of it as being grand though rather hampered by sub-committees which were reactionary, sometimes fraudulent, at the worst even containing farmers. The short point is that there must be this year of marginal utility when there is a reasonable doubt; and then who is to settle it? Is it to be Parliament? Or the local education authority? Or has not the parent a reasonable right to have something to do in deciding it? That is the short point. When this year of marginal utility comes varies very much in different children and according to our personal prejudices, but surely what we are trying to legislate for is the people of England. It is inevitable that they will think that the year of marginal utility is the one above what they are accustomed to. As long as the year to which they are accustomed is 14 it is rather doubtful whether they will consider it necessary to stay at school after 14. The general public will naturally feel that the year of marginal utility is the year with which the Bill deals and, therefore, is it not reasonable that parents and children should have a considerable say in deciding the matter?

4.48 p.m.

Mr. COVE: I could not, even if I tried, follow the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) in his cynical speech. Throughout it was a cynical speech in regard to the working-class children of the country. I could not follow him intellectually; I have not the capacity; but I was wondering why on earth he has not left the quiet and secure places of Cambridge for the turmoil of the pits in the Rhondda Valley. His argument was an argument for the abolition of most of the universities and certainly for the abolition of the greater percentage of the great public schools. If the tests which the hon. Member wants to apply to the ordinary normal child were applied in these instances I imagine that the public schools would be largely empty. If the hon. Member wants to give to parents the duty of being the deciding factor, then I would ask him to put parents in an economic position to make the choice. Anyone who knows anything of working-doss life to-day knows that most people would keep their children in school if they were able to maintain them. It Is the poverty of the parents which compels them to allow their children to go into the larger field


of industry and labour. I ask the hon. Member to look at the question of education from the wider economic, social and political interests of the nation. Education to-day, in a more real sense than ever, is a great social service which is absolutely essential for the economic wellbeing and even the political stability of the nation.
There has never been in my experience a Bill which has had such a mixed reception as this Bill. I frankly admit, indeed I am glad, that on the religious part of the Bill, the grants to non-provided schools, there has been general rejoicing. Without exception we are all glad that this part of the Bill has had a harmonious passage through Second Reading and Committee stage, and the good will which has been evinced will help to make this part of the Bill effective in operation. I for one appreciate the fact that the Minister on this part of the Bill has stuck to his word. We felt that he would do so, and that the compromise which was arranged would be put on the Statute Book. I wish this part of the Bill God speed. As to the other part of the Measure, where is there a single interest in the education world which rejoices about it? Where are the combined views of local authorities on this part? I follow keenly the official papers of education authorities and I do not know, although there may be, a single argument in which they show acceptance of the first part of the Bill. There is nothing but criticism.
Local administrators of experience know full well that the Minister is putting upon them an almost, impossible task. Three years hence we are to have the raising of the school age with exemptions. The number of these exemptions no one can foretell. The Minister himself cannot foretell. Right through Committee stage the right hon. Gentleman failed to give us any light or leading as to what beneficial employment is, and even after the Committee stage we are still left in the same vague condition so far as any definition of suitable employment is concerned. Yet the burden is being thrown on local authorities of making provision for an unknown number of children three years hence. That is an impossible administrative task to give local authorities. I am rather suspicious that the Minister expects many more exemptions than he has been prepared to admit.

Mr. PICKTHORN: Cynical!

Mr. COVE: No, that is not cynical. I am coming to the official pronouncement of the Conservative party and that is not a cynical piece of work. This is what speakers of the Conservative party were instructed to say:
Lastly, owing to the prospective fall in the number of juveniles, there will he by 1939 a shortage rather than a surplus of juvenile labour, except in the depressed areas 
What is the inference to be drawn from that? If they were instructed to say that there will be a shortage of juvenile labour it is obvious that they were instructed to tell their audiences not. to worry because not many of their children would be kept in school; they would be wanted in the workshops and factories. Exemptions, right through the whole history of education, have been due to the demand for cheap labour by employers on the one side, and to the poverty of parents on the other.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Can the hon. Member tell us the document from which he is reading?

Mr. COVE: It is "Hints to Speakers, 1936, February"

Duchess of ATHOLL: That is not an official document of the National Government.

Mr. COVE: I did not say it was. I will read it in full—" Hints for 14peakers, issued by the Conservative and Unionist Central Office."

Duchess of ATHOLL: There is no pledge in that.

Mr. COVE: The Noble Lady has missed the point. I am saying that Conservative speakers were instructed to tell their audiences that there will be a shortage of juvenile labour and that their children would be wanted in the factories and workshops; they would not be wanted in school. From the beginning the Government have had no intention of making the school age watertight. They meant that there shall be a large number of exemptions allowing children to go into factories and workshops. Let me take the President of the Board of Education on his Second Reading speech. Quite frankly in that speech arid throughout Committee the right hon. Gentleman did not visualise or will not admit that he


realises the real problem before us. The right hon. Gentleman says that there are no blind-alley occupations worth talking about.

Mr. STANLEY: Where did I say that?

Mr. COVE: I will give the right hon. Gentleman the quotation. He also minimised the unregulated trades. Those are two assertions and I propose to read a quotation. In his Second Reading speech the right hon. Gentleman said:
We are dealing here with the case of the individual child and the individual job, and in the majority of cases the decisive factor as to whether the particular employment is beneficial or not is not the classification of the job but its conditions; not what the job is called, but whether it leads to further opportunities for the child, what are the conditions of hours and wages and the opportunities for recreation, leisure and education. I believe that you find very few jobs which you would never in any circumstances be able to say were beneficial. In almost every instance it would depend upon the particular conditions and prospects which it offered for the future
Then comes the following sentence:
Take what are loosely called blind-alley jobs 
Will any hon. Member say that that sentence gives any conviction that the Minister realises the realities of blind-alley occupations.
You cannot define a blind-alley job as a particular trade 
A little further on he said:
It is the same with what are loosely called unregulated trades "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1936; col. 1168, Vol. 308.]
In reading that paragraph, the impression I get is that it does not show a real appreciation of the social, economic and industrial problem that is involved in the employment of these children; nor does it show any appreciation of the gravity of the position, or the nature of blind-alley occupations. If the Minister wishes to deny that, I shall be glad to give way to him.

Mr. STANLEY: I am sure the hon. Gentleman has not deliberately misrepresented me. I will begin by informing the House of the context of my speech. We were discussing the utility of central regulations, and I think the point I made is one which the whole House will see. The hon. Member might

perhaps say that the occupation of a van-boy is a blind-alley occupation. Would he say that?

Mr. COVE: Yes.

Mr. STANLEY: That illustrates the difficulty. Is it a blind-alley occupation if a boy is offered a job in a firm as a van-boy with the promise of promotion to the position of driver of the lorry when he becomes an adult? It is for that reason that I say jobs cannot be classified as blind-alley jobs. It depends upon the particular employment and upon whether the job into which the boy goes will lead to something else later on.

Mr. COVE: There may be promotion for one boy, but one out of how many? Hon. Members must consider this great social problem, and I would like to give some figures to illustrate its gravity. Twenty-eight per cent. of the youths who are registered under the new Unemployment Act are in the distributive trades. If one follows those distributive trades as a class of trades, what does one find? The curve of unemployment rises with the curve of age. I have here some most appalling figures, and since the Minister has challenged me, I hope the House will permit me to refer to some of them.

Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Member has not answered my question. Would he say that a boy going as a van-boy in a firm with a promise of promotion on reaching adult age was going into a blind-alley occupation?

Mr. COVE: Yes, and for two or three main reasons. One is that if the van-boy gets promotion, it is obvious from the figures of unemployment that he gets it at the expense of somebody who is older. If hon. Members will look into this problem they will see the tragedy of it. From the figures, I know very well that the vast majority of children (no matter what may be the firm with which they get employment) who enter the distributive trade, are entering a trade in which the menace of unemployment becomes greater as they grow older. It is the astounding fact that only 8 per cent. of the people who enter the distributive trades are found there at the age of 44. Let me give the House the detailed figures of various trades. In the distribution of coal, at 15 years of age one in 89 is unemployed at 18 to 20 years of age, one in 24 is unemployed. Confectionery: 14 to 15 years


of age, one in 27 is unemployed; 18 to 20 years of age, one in 11 is unemployed. Groceries and provisions: at 14 to 15 years of age, one in 45 is unemployed; 18 to 20 years of age, one in 16 is unemployed. I have a list of figures concerning the meat, milk and dairying, fish, poultry, tobacco, drugs, ironmongery trades, and so on. They show that at the ages of 18 to 20 there is a big jump in the unemployment figures; at the age of 30 there is a still bigger jump, and again at 40 to 45. This does not merely affect the distributive trades, but the coal and textile industries. In the textile areas the parents will not put their children into the ordinary staple trades.
For many years the figures of unemployment have been round about 2,000,000. There is an absolute surplus of labour. In a speech the other night the Chancellor foreshadowed a decline in the trade cycle. We may be faced with further unemployment. My argument to the Minister is that this is not merely an individual problem. It is not a problem of a boy getting service under one good firm. It is a social problem and a great national problem. I say that in the first part of this Bill, owing to the poverty of the parents and still more owing to the fact that the employers will command and demand cheap labour, the Government have been afraid to face the great social responsibility that lies before them. While I welcome heartily the second part of the Bill, I do not believe the first part contains anything that can make any social reformer, whether he be an educationist or not, anyone who has any interest in the youth of our country, or anyone who has a vital interest in the economic, social and industrial wellbeing of our country, enthusiastic about it. The provisions of the first part are a mean and miserable contribution to a great problem. There is no substance and no reality in them and therefore, on account of the first part of the Bill, I shall go into the Division Lobby in favour of our Amendment to-night.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. CROSSLEY: After listening to the last two speeches, I say without hesitation that I prefer that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) to the tirade we have just heard from the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove). I do not think

the speech of my hon. Friend the Member or Cambridge University was cynical. I thought it was much more a search after truth than the speech to which we have just listened. I think that in many respects the speech of the hon. Member for Aberavon did not do justice to the plain facts of the case. I felt I could not allow this Bill, in which many of my constituents take an immense interest, to pass without making a few observations upon it. A few years ago there was presented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord Eustace Percy) a Bill to which my name was added, and I think that shortly afterwards there was introduced by the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir Percy Harris) a private Member's Motion which took up what was almost that Bill and advanced it to the House as a great measure of social progress. So I took it to be, and so I still took it to be when I saw that the Government election manifesto had taken what was practically the substance of our Bill and that it was included in the Government's programme. I believed then that it was a big measure of social progress, and I still believe that.
Before I return, to the tirade of the hon. Member for Aberavon, I want to say a few words in preface to my arguments. I believe there was very great substance in the arguments about teachers put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University. I cannot help wishing that the National Union of Teachers was called the National Union of Tutors, because I believe that would have put the emphasis in the right place. The emphasis of "teacher" is surely on him who teaches, but the emphasis of "tutor" is on the child, because the tutor is the guide who is there to educate the child to draw out what is in the child, and not to teach or to inculcate what is in him. That is a distinction which really goes to the bottom of our education problem, and it is a distinction which I do not believe the hon. Member for Aberavon recognises. I hope he will not think I am in any way being academic. I shall go on to elucidate what I mean later on and that is why I introduce it at this moment.

Mr. COVE: Take it as read.

Mr. CROSSLEY: Take it as read if the hon. Member likes, but we should then


have to take a great deal of what he said as read, and we would not like to do that. It is clear that the promise of exemptions as a right was in the Government manifesto. I believe that the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Markham) was wrong yesterday when he attacked the Minister. He could easily have said to his electors that the manifesto was a Government manifesto and that he disagreed with that point in it; he could have said he would oppose the Government on that point if he was elected; but what he could not say was that the Government manifesto did not promise exemptions as a right. It was there in black and white. I disagree equally with the point made by the Noble Lady the Member for Western Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) when she said that she regarded industry as requiring young people.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I said that young people were required in the case of certain processes in some industries, for instance, in the woollen industry.

Mr. CROSSLEY: The Noble Lady advances the argument that there were certain industries which required young people. I do not believe there is an industry which cannot very readily and quickly adapt itself to social legislation. Indeed, I could go to great employers and get any die-hard argument advanced if I wanted to, but I would stress the other side of the case. I believe it is necessary for some boys, if they are to train themselves for what their future life is going to be, to get into practical employment when they are young. That is the first of the reasons why I welcome the exemption system. This is an age of machinery, and however much we regret that it should be, it is likely to remain so. A portion of our community will be needed for brainwork in the future, but a much greater proportion will be needed for skilled manual work.

Mr. GALLAGHER: Ah!

Mr. CROSSLEY: It is very true that under any system of government a very great proportion It ill be used in skilled manual work.

Mr. GALLACHER: Can the hon. Member mention any employment of any kind that cannot as easily start at 15 as at 14?

Mr. CROSSLEY: Yes, 1 can. I think it is desirable for a good many forms of engineering apprenticeship to start early, and certainly n many professions, like dramatic art, and many skilled trades, like bookdinding, it is desirable to start early. I could no doubt get many more instances, but it is a question of which I should like to have notice. In the future many of our young people will be training for a life in which they will have to work machinery and use their hands. I believe that those children are much better in practical employment, provided the conditions are good, than they would be in school. The corollary was put by my hon. Friend behind me. The real educational approach to this problem is the selection of the vast numbers of those who are best suited to do brainwork who come from what we are pleased to call the working classes, although I believe that all classes work equally hard to-day, and that must come through the scholarship system, which has nothing to do with the raising of the school age. Under the scholarship system the boys who will get scholarships are already, to use a horrible phrase, creamed off by the time they are 11 years of age. They are in the secondary schools, and half the pupils in the secondary schools are there free. Our universities are crowded with young men who have gone up from the elementary and secondary schools, and even at Oxford and Cambridge, in 1934, out of some 670 awards, there were 369 granted to young people from the elementary and secondary schools. That is an advance on which we, as a nation, can congratulate ourselves, and we can really begin to say that poverty is beginning to be no bar to educational advance.
There is one other reason why I believe the scheme of exemptions is desirable, and that is that the parents are almost the only people who have not indicated a distaste for this Bill. They may not have expressed themselves very strongly on it, but many of them have expressed themselves very strongly against a system which does not allow of exemptions, and I believe that the parents want exemptions and want to see the gradual raising of the school-leaving age as well. In those conditions I believe the local authorities are really the right people to judge. Some people talk of local authorities at one moment as if they are


capable of being entrusted with every kind of State function, and at the next moment they talk of them as if they cannot carry out a function with which many of them have been partially entrusted in the past. I am not now referring to those authorities which are running the exemption system, and I think it is particularly difficult for them to run an exemption system in a country which, in general, has a school-leaving age of 14; but I refer to those local authorities which have juvenile employment committees and which work them very well. Here in this Bill there are certain specific standards for the local authorities to judge by, and it is only fair to assume for the time being that the local authorities will administer those conditions well. I believe they will, and I hope the President of the Board of Education will emphasise this in his reply. Especially do I hope they will have regard to those provisions in the Bill dealing with the prospect of the child's employment. If my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) still radically disagrees with my argument on exemptions, the division of work, and the education of our children for the kind of work for which they will be needed in the future, he will indeed find most of that argument set forth in the political dissertations, the Communist dissertations, of Plato.
I just wanted to say, before I sit down, a word on that portion of the Bill which has vitally interested large numbers of my constituents—that dealing with non-provided schools. It so happens that my constituency is situated in an area in which there has been some local opposition to the provisions of this Bill, but, I think, a very misjudged opposition. As a whole I believe that the heads of both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church can be grateful to a limited extent for this Bill, and they have so expressed themselves. It has given them at least something which they have never had before. It has not given them what they would like to have by right so much as by privilege. But the President of the Board of Education has assured them that it is not a final settlement, and they regard it as a step forward towards the final settlement. In the words of one Archbishop, the Catholic Archbishop of Birmingham:
This Bill is an honest attempt to help our schools to take their proper place in

the national system of education, and though it does not give us all that we ask for, anything which helps the Catholic school to overcome its difficulties is worthy of our grateful acceptance
We do give our grateful acceptance of this Measure to the Minister and many of us would like to express our gratitude to those who used to oppose us bitterly in the past, for their moderation at this time and for their recognition of the part that voluntary schools play in the life of the nation.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. MUFF: I should like to be permitted to congratulate the President of the Board of Education at any rate upon one portion of his Bill. I do not complain that he is at the present time no doubt having much needed refreshment, but I wish to congratulate him upon having succeeded where I know from memory a series of Presidents of the Board of Education in the past, including Mr. McKenna and the late Mr. Augustine Birrell, failed. I am glad that I am living in times when the religious atmosphere is such that the President of the Board has been able to make full use of his opportunities to allow all children to be able to be taught in schools which will be fit for them in every particular, and especially, so that they can take advantage, we are hoping, or we were hoping of that extra year which was promised to us in the Hadow Report; but I am sorry to say that the right hon. Gentleman has given to us a new meaning of the word "beneficial," and in years to come the meaning of that word in the dictionary will be something very different from what it is to-day. I regret that the President has come under the malign influence of the Noble Lady the Member for West Perth (Duchess of Atholl), even as much almost as when she was directly associated with the Board of Education and she had such a distracting influence over the Noble Lord the ex-Minister for hard thinking. The Noble Lady came to this House and told us what beneficial employment was. She said she had received a letter from a factory girl, I believe—

Duchess of ATHOLL: If the hon. Member had done me the compliment of listening carefully to my speech, he would remember that I quoted from information given to me by heads of firms who spoke of the very serious shortage of juvenile labour—which has been confirmed to-day


by a speaker on the Front Opposition Bench—and who also said that they had machinery standing idle and adults unemployed because they could not be employed on that particular machinery.

Mr. MUFF: I am indebted to the Noble Lady. She has told us she did not receive the letter from any of her girl friends, the factory girls, but got her information from captains of our industry, and she mentioned the word "Bradford." I will make the Noble Lady a sporting offer. If the Noble Lady will come down with me to Bradford and spend her Summer Recess there, I will undertake to go back to my own job and to initiate the Noble Lady as a doffer in some of our mills. I will undertake that her fingers and mine will be able to do the doffing that is necessary on the spinning frames. Speaking from my experience, I want to say that there is no excuse for this dreadful new meaning which the President of the Board of Education applies to the word "beneficial."

Duchess of ATHOLL: rose—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I would point out to hon. Members that every time an interruption takes place it lengthens the time of the speech of the hon. Member who may be speaking, and that a number of other hon. Members wish to speak on this subject.

Mr. MUFF: What the Noble Lady is wanting is cheap, docile and disorganised labour. Her speeches and her attitude, even when she was at the Board of Education, take me back to the clays when some of our ancestors wanted some of us to go back, as we had to, to the mill the day when we were 10 in order to be strapped by the overlooker, and then to go to church with the same over-looker and sing the Noble Lady's favourite theme song, "Oh, what can little hands do" I regret that the Minister has not implemented a real beneficial Act of Parliament without exemptions which would allow children to benefit from the four years' programme as laid down in the Hadow report. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman will be inundated with many exemptions. Many years ago a former fellow-townsman of mine came to this House and sat

on the Front Bench opposite in order, with great trouble to build a pioneer pathway of education—the late W. E. Forster. His ideal, in the midst of much religious controversy, which, I am thankful to say, is now absent, was to build a broad highway.
The right hon. Gentleman, I regret to say, is reversing the process, and I believe that what he wants to do is, as we say in Yorkshire, to take us down a snicket or down a ginnel. He may by his system of exemption be preventing some future saviour, some great public servant of the country, from being able to take full advantage of his educational opportunities. I admire the family of the right hon. Gentleman for its great traditions and its great public services to this country. I have tried to go back to the fourteenth century or thereabouts to find the beginnings of the family of the right hon. Gentleman. If it were to have its beginnings to-day, instead of about 1485, with the exemptions that the right hon. Gentleman proposes in his Bill, it would not have had the great opportunity of being able to render the great national and public service that it has been able to do.

5.35 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I feel I must enter a protest against the suggestion of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Crossley) to the effect that I had been canvassing employers in order to support Diehard arguments. I would like to tell the House that, far from canvassing employers to find out what information they could give on the need of the textile industry for small lingers for a particular process, the subject was mentioned to me spontaneously several months ago before it was known the Government were going to introduce this Measure by a woman friend who is a strong supporter of the National Government and a director of one of these firms. She rather took my breath away by speaking strongly in support of the Government and then bursting out about the harm that would be cone to the woollen industry if the school age were raised. I was told then of the shortage of juvenile labour in the area of Bradford, and it was only upon than, entirely spontaneous expression of opinion, and assurance of the difficulty the industry was even then experiencing in obtaining juvenile labour,


that I acquired the information which I have felt it my duty to put before the House. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) that, however interested one may be in education, one has to recognise that there is a danger of educationists taking too one-sided a view on these matters. There seems to me to be a distinct danger of what he called educational sacerdotalism. We want through an Education Bill to help the children, but we have to recognise, at the same time, the seriousness of putting impossible handicaps in the way of industry, and I support this Bill because it leaves open the possibility of exemption for employment under conditions which will make a great improvement in the employment of children. Now I should like to reply to the challenge of the hon. Member for Bradford—

Mr. MUFF: East Hull.

Duchess of ATH0LL: Perhaps in that case the hon. Member knows a little less about Bradford than he led me to expect. I can remember nothing that I ever said or did in the four and a-half years in which I was associated with the Board of Education that would justify a single word he Aid.

Mr. MUFF: I was chairman of an education committee, and I had to administer some of the things which the Noble Lady was doing, and I speak from bitter experience.

Duchess of ATH0LL: There was certainly no attempt during the period I was at the board to do any of the things the hon. Member suggested and if we are issuing invitations, I suggest that it would be more to the point if the hon. Member would satisfy himself that machinery is now or recently has been standing idle in the mills to which I have referred and that adults are unemployed in consequence. He would then find out that what I have said is true, and it would be a more profitable way I think of spending his summer holidays than the manner he suggested.
I would like to pass to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) said about maintenance allowances. If I may say so, he referred to them in a manner that seemed to me misleading. Anyone not familiar with

Income Tax law would I think have imagined that Income Tax payers are actual recipients of £60 per annum for every child that they have to educate, inasmuch as when maintenance allowances are talked of in connection with education it means a definite grant of money to the parent of a child; but in the case of the relief that is given to the Income Tax payer it merely means that £60 per child is not assessed for Income Tax. That is a very different matter.
Again, I think that most members of the House were rather surprised to find that the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) could find no difference between employment as a van boy offered to a boy who is told that there is every prospect if he does well of becoming one day driver of the van and the offer of employment to a boy when there are no such prospects of promotion.
Finally as to the percentage of children likely to be exempted—we have of course to recognise that it is impossible to say how large this percentage will be and I admit the difficulties that this is likely to put in the way of educational administration. It may be difficult to know what accommodation will have to be prepared, but it seems to me perfectly clear that as our senior schools, wherever they are well equipped and well staffed, make the children in them very happy, that factor alone will mean that more and more children will want to stay at school for the extra year. To-day children have considerable influence with their parents, sometimes perhaps more than the parents seem to have with them, and what we may be sure of in this Bill is, that if children for different reasons are anxious to leave school and to take employment, they will go into employment safeguarded in regard to health, hours of work, opportunities for recreation and for further instruction, and chances of continuity of employment, in a way that is not open to most children to-day. Therefore, I feel that the Minister has a right to speak of the conditions under which they wilt be employed as "beneficial."

5.42 p.m.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: I am the last person to attack the Noble Lady for her attitude to education. I cannot help recollecting that she was a distinguished' Parliamentary Secretary of the board and that in those happy days she was more


progressive and more liberal in her attitude than she has been in the last year or two. As for her arguments with regard to exemption and the demand—I do not question her facts at all—for labour in the textile trade, all I can say is that the very same case was put up against the abolition of the half-timers. I have a vivid recollection of the Act of 1870, which was called a wicked and cruel Act which would bring hunger and economic shortage to thousands of homes. There was the famous case of the matchmakers in which it was said that they could not do away with the little fingers to put on the match heads and that it would bring about ruin in the great match industry. That Act of Parliament meant the humanising of the match industry, which used to be something we ought to be ashamed of, and which is now our pride and one of the most efficient, up-to-date and well-conducted industries in the country. I cannot help thinking that, if exemptions were abolished, enterprising and clever manufacturers of Yorkshire would very soon adapt their machinery to do away with the need for little fingers and would find some machinery to do the work and probably to produce their cloth more efficiently and economically without cheap child labour. It is a pity that this argument, which is unworthy of the Noble Lady, was brought into this discussion.
I have never argued that there was a great popular demand from the mass of the people for this educational advance. That has never been the case with any great advance in education. The economic pressure in the small home is so great that it is natural to want to add to the family income by sending the children out to work, but it has always been held by social reformers that it is the duty of the Government to take the wider outlook of the well-being of the State. The Forster Act was not inspired by a desire for popularity, and it occasioned much criticism in many parts of the country, but it was felt to be in the national interest. The same observation applies to the Balfour Act. Mr. Balfour realised that his controversial Measure, which stirred up so much feeling, was not likely to strengthen his electoral prospects, but he felt it to be a necessary reform. It was the same, also, with the Fisher Ad; and I hoped that we should

be able to associate the name of the present President of the Board of Education with a great step forward in education, but now that the Bi11 appears in its final form, after the Committee stage and the Report stage, I think there are very few people who will suggest that it will bring about an educational advance.
As far as I could make out the speech of the junior Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn)—and I emphasise that I am referring to the junior Member, because 1 do not believe he represented the point of view of the senior Member—he rather rejoiced that the Bill would not make a great educational advance. He did not believe that to be desirable, and his argument was based on the necessity of limiting the advantages of education to a comparatively small percentage of the population. The case of social reformers for raising the school-leaving age is a two-fold one. In the first place it will relieve the pressure in the labour market by stopping, to some extent, the inward stream at the bottom, making it easier for the older groups of young people to retain their job longer. The pushing-out of employment of young people as they reach the age of 17, 18 or 19 is one of the contributory causes of unemployment, and social reformers, irrespective of party, have pressed this Government and previous Governments to ease the pressure by checking the flow of labour from the bottom into the labour market.
The second reason is to be found in the recommendation of the Hadow Report, now many years old on the education of adolescents, that if full advantage was to be taken of our education system it was necessary to have two four-year courses—the first, the preparatory course, for those between the ages of 7 and 11, and the senior course for those between the ags of 11 and 15. School reorganisation has been going on for the last half-dozen years, and experiene has shown—and I am sure the Noble Lady the Member for Kinross and Western Perth (Duchess of Atholl) will agree with me—that if the senior course is to be of real benefit it must run the full four years and take in the children up to the age of 15. That is the whole foundation of the reorganisation scheme, and if the Bill is to achieve that most desirable end the local education authorities must have some certainty


as to the number of children for whom they will have to provide, and there must not be too many exemptions.
Apart from the question of reorganisation we feel that the right place for a child up to the age of 15 is not the workshop or the factory but the school, first from the point of view of its spiritual well-being as regards the formation of character, arid, secondly, from the practical point of view of its education for life and for industry. What is going on to-day is a reorganisation which is introducing into education a technical bias, and to make that a success the four-year course is essential. An hon. Member opposite was good enough to refer to a private Bill introduced by me in the last Parliament, and to claim, as I believe the right hon. Gentleman the Minister has also claimed, that it afforded at any rate part of the inspiration for this Measure. My excuse for that Bill was that it was the only kind of Bill which I could introduce under the Standing Orders. I did not believe that it had any chance of becoming law, but obviously I could not introduce a Bill which would impose a, charge, and so I adopted a form such as the rules of the House permitted.

Mr. STANLEY: Surely the hon. Baronet is not telling the House that he introduced a Bill, and got a whole day's discussion devoted to it, when he himself believed that it was a bad Bill?

Sir P. HARRIS: It was the best I could draft within the rules of order. Let us see what the Board of Education, said at that time. I do not mind quoting it, because it is a good criticism of this Bill. The present Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture said:
I feel, as other people feel, that on the educational side it rather carries out the waiting-room policy in schools, where the children are kept in the waiting-room or in the cloakroom hung up on pegs until somebody comes along to take them down.
He went on to say:
Where schools are reorganised I believe that it would be difficult to plan proper educational courses with classes that are continually changing and shrinking. If the experiment were tried it might bring discredit on the whole system owing to the comparative educational failure of the new classes, and that is why I feel the cloakroom policy is not a good policy educationally."— [OFFICAL REPORT, 1st December, 1933; cols. 1268–9, Vol. 283.]

That is a good description of this Bill. I am afraid that it will not be found to be a practical policy, and that it will discredit the whole idea in connection with advancing the school-leaving age. The working of exemptions will undoubtedly create discontent and friction among the parents of the children. Their attitude will be "All or none." They will not think it fair that their neighbour's children shall be able to go into industry and get good wages—partly because of the shortage of labour—while their own children have to remain at school; and the serious part of it will be that the good jobs will go to the children of parents who least need them. The child who is well clothed and well fed will, naturally, have more chance in the labour market than the child of a man out of work who is unable to turn it out properly clothed. Much of that difficulty would have been minimised if there had been maintenance allowances. There is a strong case against maintenance allowances if all children were required to stay at school, but an unanswerable case for them if you are only going to keep some at school, because I think it could be shown that the children who will be retained at school will generally be the children of those who can least afford to keep them out of the labour market.
That is a serious thing which, I think. will make this change unpopular with the people whose support it is absolutely vital to get. But on top of that I think the machinery will break down when the Bill comes into operation. How will it be possible for a local education authority to calculate the number of school places required, or the number of teachers? It will be difficult to anticipate how many children will be retained at school and how many will be exempted. I should have liked to have been able to support this Bill, because in its title, at any rate, it does attempt to do something for education; but I believe that Part I will break down because of the clumsy construction of its machinery and the impossibility of devisiong a satisfactory system of exemptions. It is true that Part II is universally accepted, and I think the right hon. Gentleman is deserving of credit for it, but I think we can share that credit with him. We are living in happier days when our main desire is to secure the well-being of the child, and I think it is unfortunate that


advantage was not taken of the agreement come to on the denominational question to introduce a bold scheme of educational advance. The right hon. Gentleman has let that opportunity slip, and for that reason I must condemn the Bill.

5.57 p.m.

Colonel Sir JOHN; SHUTE: As one who has followed the whole of these debates since the introduction of the Bill and had the privilege of being on the Committee, and as one who has also taken part in education debates throughout the country for a great number of years, perhaps I may be permitted to make some observations on this Measure. As to the first part of the Bill, I am in complete agreement with the Minister that the Clauses which have caused so much discussion—the Clauses dealing with exemptions—were fully in keeping with and, in fact, were demanded by the statement which was made on behalf on the Government at the General Election. I would also say as an employer of labour both direct and in an administrative capacity, in which I have the overlooking of many thousands of people in Lancashire, that I am desirous of seeing the day come when the raising of the school-leaving age will be made without any exemptions whatever. Engaged as I am in trade and commerce and coming into contact with the post-war competition to which we are now subjected, I take the view that it will be essential for the youth of the country to have the advantage of prolonged education which will be given to them by this extra year at school if they are to meet the competition with which we are being faced.
Other hon. Members will speak on the earlier Clauses, but I wish to refer to the Clauses relating to the non-provided schools. I am speaking as one of the Catholic Members of the House. We have all been delighted to work with our Church of England and Jewish Friends, and I endorse and heartily welcome the spirit of good will and compromise which has existed throughout the discussion of this Measure, particularly in Committee. The comments that fell from the lips of Members of all parties showed that nobody desired to make party capital out of the Measure. Those were striking words by the hon.

Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), when he said:
I cannot adequately express the measure of my rejoicing at the fact that, at long last, this controversy is passing from the political arena."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee A), 7th May, 1936; col. 371.]
I gratefully acknowledge the generous and general recognition that we have received of the special position of the Catholic body in this matter. I am particularly glad of that, because on every occasion upon which I have appeared on a platform in the country with regard to education, I have never failed to say that I could not understand the necessity for introducing religious bitterness into this question. As believers in the voluntary schools, we have always stated that the concessions which we have asked for or demanded for ourselves we would demand equally for any other branch of the Christian faith or for the Jewish community, should they desire them. We remain of the definite view, which we have never altered, that religious teaching and the creation of an atmosphere conducive to the promulgation of such teaching, so essential to the building up of the character of the child which we believe is even more important than mere book-learning. We therefore logically insist that those who teach must be professing and practising believers in the faith of the children whom they are called upon to teach. When we look around the world we see the open or insidious attacks that are made upon religion, and it is noticeable that those attacks always focus upon the child. I suppose it is obvious that at that immature age the effects are more lasting, for good or for ill.
The great bulk of the people of the faith to which I belong are drawn from the poorer classes. Those of us who are, fortunately, in a better financial position, can, and unhesitatingly do, send their children to great Catholic public schools like Beaumont, Downside, Stoneyhurst and Ampleforth, without any thought in our minds of any other course. Our poorer brethren, whilst equally earnest in their convictions, are left with the choice either of sending their children to a school in which that fundamental religious training and religious atmosphere, which they feel to be essential to the well-being of their children, is non-existent, or of finding, out of their


own pockets, the money to build schools to house their children where such an atmosphere would prevail. During the last 30 or 40 years, the price that they have paid for that conscientious belief has been grave and onerous. The great bulk of the people of my faith, ravaged as they have been by unemployment, especially in the northern parts of the country, in which there are great numbers of Catholics, have shown unmistakably their definite determination to carry out what they believe is essential for the benefit of the children for whom they are responsible. I think no hon. Member would grudge the recognition that I ask for those people, and for the great sacrifices which they have made.
No school that has been opened by the Catholic body has ever been closed. Year after year, with the growth of the Catholic population, schools are built or are in the process of building, to house the growing youth who desire to become members of those schools. In the English dioceses we now have 1,423 schools, with over 400,000 scholars. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) can confirm because his division adjoins my own, the great difficulties that we have had, in our city of Liverpool, to find accommodation for Catholic children who are clamouring to get into schools which are already overcrowded. Intolerable extra burdens are placed upon the school managers and upon our devoted teachers, but from these overcrowded schools scholars of an equally high educational order are turned out as from any of the council schools in Liverpool or elsewhere, although the amenities of our schools are out of all proportion to those built by the general body of ratepayers, and to which we contribute our proportionate share.
The raising of the school-leaving age, based upon the decision of the Government to carry out the findings of the Hadow Report, entails further burdens upon us which it is almost impossible to meet, but we are desirous of taking our full part in the educational advance which has been foreshadowed. The Government, desiring the aid of the voluntary schools, promised some mitigation of our financial burdens, for a limited purpose and for a limited time, but that still leaves us to find from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. of the cost.
I differ from hon. Members who say that the 1902 compromise has been broken and therefore some compensating gesture should be made by the supporters of voluntary schools. Without any desire to be controversial, I must be honest and say that I do not see the matter in that light. We are dealing with an entirely new situation which was never contemplated in 1902, and which has been brought about by a new elaboration of Government policy; but we recognise the spirit of good will that has already been referred to, and which, emanating from the Minister, has spread to all sections of the House. We desire to co-operate with that spirit, but we would have desired that the step which the Government have taken had been more generous. It would have been quite possible for the National Government to take a more generous step. However, we accept it definitely as a step in the right direction, hoping that the day will not be long distant when we shall get fair and equal measure with other schools doing work similar to our own.
I wish to say quite definitely, as otherwise it would not be fair to the House, that in the arrangements which we may make with local authorities we shall insist upon our right to have Catholic teachers for Catholic children in Catholic schools. I believe that the vast majority of local education authorities will be agreeable. In the single-school areas—I believe that there are not more than 14 individual schools throughout the country, housing some 600 children—doubtless a compromise will be made which will be satisfactory to both sides. I am profoundly thankful for the change of attitude suggested by the reception of the Bill. A distinguished Member of the Opposition —I do not wish to particularise him, as he was somewhat embarrassed by the very great compliments paid to him by Members of other parties—used words which I think he will recognise. He said:
…a permanent recognition of the dual system. Inherent in this proposal is the permanency of Church schools."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee A), 28th April, 1936; col. 288.]
I do not believe it can be long before we get the same financial aid that is given to council schools. And so believing in the justice of our cause may I con-


clude with the words of Abraham Lincoln used on a great occasion? They are:
With malice towards none; with charity towards all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in.
I thank those who have differed from us in the past for the very fair way in which they have met us on the points at issue. We congratulate the Minister, not only for the Bill as a whole, but for the masterly grasp he has shown of the intricate details of the conflicting problems and diverse views held, and for the way in which he has overcome these difficulties. We are grateful also for his courtesy and consideration, and for the cleverness with which he has smoothed out all the rough points until he has brought the Bill to its successful issue. Nothing that the right hon. Gentleman has done in the course of his career has been better done than the work in which we are taking part to-day. It must be a very fine thing for him to be able to stand at that Box knowing that, for the first time for over 30 years, an Education Bill has been brought to this House one portion of which will be accepted almost unanimously, as I accept it on behalf of those whom I represent.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. LESLIE: We have heard two speeches from the other side of the House as to the need for children of 14 finding employment in certain occupations. The Noble Lady the Member for Kinross and Western Perth (Duchess of Atholl) made a statement regarding the declaration of a certain branch of employers as to the absolute necessity of employing children, and as to the harm that would be done to the woollen industry if the school-leaving age were raised. That sort of argument was very common in the time of Lord Shaftesbury when he was fighting on behalf of child slaves nearly a century ago. Then we had a statement from the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Crossley) in which he said it was necessary to get boys at a young age for certain occupations. Strangely enough, one never hears well-to-do parents, who can afford to send their children to secondary schools and public schools, advocating that their boys and girls should leave school at the age of 14 and go into these occupations. There was a time when it was our proud boast that we led

the world in social legislation, but I am afraid that we cannot make that claim any longer. The attitude adopted by the British Government at Geneva during the past four years has certainly not enhanced our reputation abroad. As regards the school-leaving age, this Measure falls far short of the recommendations made at Geneva last year.

Mr. STANLEY: Would the hon. Member tell the House how many nations have actually raised their school-leaving age above 14?

Mr. LESLIE: The recommendation was only made last year Where I find fault with the Government is that they have not gone the length of carrying out that recommendation or anything like it, or of giving a lead. My contention is that this country ought to maintain its prestige by giving a lead in social legislation, but it has not done so for the past four years. That recommendation at Geneva was passed by 96 votes to 47. It is true that the British Government representative abstained from voting on that occasion, and probably that is the reason why the British Government say that they are under no obligation to carry out the recommendation. Under that recommendation the minimum age agreed upon was to be not less than 15 years. This Bill makes 15 the maximum, and not the minimum, whereas the Geneva recommendation was that there should be full-time attendance at school, until suitable employment was available, up to the age of 18.
Suitability of employment under the Geneva recommendation refers primarily to the continuity of the employment and the future prospects therein. I am not satisfied that this Bill sufficiently safeguards the interests of the child in that respect. I want to ask the Minister a question. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) has already dealt with the distributive trades. Would the Minister regard the distributive trades as offering suitable employment, when today, while the ratio of unemployment between the ages of 14 and 15 is one in 35, between the ages of 18and 21 it is one in 12? That means that, when suitable boys reach an age at which they require a wage on which they can maintain themselves, they are thrown on to the scrap-heap, and to-day 45 per cent. of those who are employed in the distribu-


tive trades are under 21 years of age. I certainly do not consider that the distributive trades to-day can be regarded as offering beneficial employment.
With regard to the legal limitation of the hours of labour, there is no safeguard in the Bill as to excessive hours. It is a very heavy strain upon boys or girls to be taken away from school, where they have to work 28 hours in the week, and suddenly be dumped into an industry where the hours may be anything from 48 upwards. Juvenile employment committees all over the country have time and again emphasised how difficult it is for boys and girls, after working long hours during the daytime, to attend evening classes, and this Bill provides that they have to attend classes. The Bill throws a considerable onus on local authorities, and I am afraid it will prove to be anything but an education Bill in the real sense. It is very significant that education authorities all over the country have in the main condemned the Measure from an educational point of view.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. SERVINGTON SAVERY: It is very pleasing to hear the many congratulations that have been offered to the Minister on the way in which he has piloted this Bill so far, and especially on the part he has taken in settling so amicably the vexed question of religious instruction, a, theme which in years gone by has occupied this House and other places with loud and bellicose debate. It has been urged throughout the discussions on this Bill that the main object of the Measure will not be achieved—that, owing to the exemptions which will be granted, the Bill will introduce merely the principle of a higher school-leaving age, and that the practice will be wanting. I do not share that fear, because I believe that a process in education has taken root so deeply that no influence or obstruction can arrest it or set it back. That process owes its origin, I think, to a change of mind. In the last century, when our system of State education began, it was only by the exertion of authority that the children of England were brought to the school gates. Parents then were looked upon as prospective enemies, to be coerced by the threat of summons and penalty. With this new century a better

conception prevails, and I think the reason for it is that successive generations of children, grown to manhood and womanhood under this system of education, are now ready, as parents and citizens, to testify to its value and to claim its benefits for their children. Though Governments have given it guidance, and great men have inspired it, education now is essentially the concern of the people. I believe that public opinion today is on the side of the schools, and, therefore, I think we need not fear undue pressure for exemption, either from parents or from employers.
No question of principle divides educational reformers in all parties over the school-leaving age. I believe that all of them regard the raising of it as a great step forward. But the benefit to be derived from a longer school period must depend entirely on the quality of the education that we can give. The change which this Bill proposes will involve local authorities in a heavy task of reorganisation, and in a considerable expenditure of money. I hope that, with regard to the additional money to be spent, the education authorities will be urged to divide it fairly among all their educational needs. We do not want, for instance, to see new buildings so costly and pretentious that sufficient money is not left for the adequate supply of new equipment, new apparatus and new books. I want to draw the special attention of the Minister, if I may, to this last item, because I feel sure that he will regard it as a most important feature in the reorganisation that will take place.
One of the most serious responsibilities that faces those who are concerned with education is the selection and supply of suitable school books. Owing to recent developments in teaching, pupils are being trained now to gather information for themselves, rather than depend so much on class instruction. It seems to me, then, to be essential that full and accurate sources of information shall be available to the children, and that generous and well-selected supplies of school books and works of reference shall be at hand for them to consult. For some years past it has been felt that the books provided, especially for our public elementary schools, have been deficient in quantity and poor in educational quality. It was concern for that defect


which led the Board of Education some years ago to appoint a consultative committee, who were authorised to look into the question of the supply of school books. The report which that committee presented showed that there was great need for improvement. They said that more books and better books ought to be provided, and it was stated, from data supplied to the committee, that the amounts spent on books—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now going outside the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. SAVERY: I am only trying to show that, of the expenditure which this Bill will entail, it is very necessary that a sufficient amount should be spent on the books that will be needed for the schools. We want to feel sure that the pupils who have to spend another year at school shall not suffer from that deficiency when this Bill is in operation. Not only was the supply of books insufficient, but the quality was stated to be very poor, and I believe that even now there are books in our schools which are very poor in style and obsolete in matter. I have seen, for instance, books connected with our Dominions which are inaccurate and contain statements that are misleading. It might be wise if the statements in school books could be revised regularly.

Mr. SPEAK ER: These questions hardly arise on the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. SAVERY: I feel so strongly as to the importance of this matter that I would ask the Minister to give advice, if he can, to local authorities in connection with the Bill, so that we may not suffer from that defect in future. It is very certain that, if the rising generation is to keep its head clear and its taste unspoilt, the children must form the habit of intelligent reading while still at school. Let their books, then, be of such a quality that they may acquire some feeling of what is noble in literature and find in them food for their imagination and a tonic for their character.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I fear that you, Sir, would preclude me from following the most interesting reflections of the hon. Member upon the character of the books provided in schools. If he raises

the subject again when we arrive at the Education Estimates, we shall be able to have an interesting and more leisurely discussion on the subject. We are reaching the end of the discussions, as far as this House is concerned, on the Education Bill. It is only some five years ago that this House was engaged in a fierce controversy upon the subject of the non-provided schools. I cannot help but reflect with some pleasure upon the very remarkable transformation that has taken place in the attitude of Members generally towards this portion of our subject. They have, quite rightly, offered the right hon. Gentleman their congratulations upon the fact that the section of the Bill referring to non-provided schools has had so very little opposition. I join with them in those congratulations. The right hon. Gentleman will agree with me, I think, that there is one other person who is entitled to some meed of consideration in this matter. I refer to my friend Sir Charles Trevelyan, who was Minister of Education in 1931. I sometimes wonder whether hon. Members appreciate how very closely these non-provided school proposals follow those of 1931. There is virtually no difference whatever between them. Perhaps I may be forgiven if, not for the purpose of controversy, but in order to mark the change that has taken place, I draw attention to certain differences in our attitude towards the matter. In 1931 we were in the middle of a virulent campaign conducted by the various Churches concentrating upon our proposals. I do not wish to deny that it was not a particularly edifying spectacle. I should hope and pray that I may never again be involved in a controversy of that kind in my political life. Our Bill went as far as this Bill has reached to-night and an Amendment was moved by a Member on our side, which was supported by supporters of the Government. It went further than the proposals of the then Government. We were beaten. The Amendment was embodied in the Bill. The Bill went to another place and it was rejected in its amended form.

Mr. STANLEY: On other grounds.

Mr. JONES: That may be. I wonder what will happen to this Bill in another place. It is worth while pointing out, too, that our Bill raised the school leaving age for all children to 15. This does not.


It is worth while pointing out, also, that our Bill provided maintenance allowances. This does not. And yet people who were vigorous and virulent in their attacks upon our Bill have been conspicuously silent in regard to this Bill. Not only that, but an Amendment was carried extending the measure of the financial responsibility of the State in regard to non-provided schools. The Government has in this Bill adopted the proportion that we laid down, namely, not less than 50 per cent. and not more than 75. I am so glad that the lead that we gave in 1935 has been accepted by the Government to-day. There is a Biblical phrase:
The stone the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner.
It is certainly so in this case. Our proposals have been adopted by the Government, and they look like becoming the law of the land. I rejoice in the fact. Let us hope that the edifice that we are constructing to-night may be one in which the children shall gather together round a hearth, so to speak, where the fierce fires of religious bigotry and intolerance will be dimmed and they will enjoy the more comforting warmth of religious comradeship and friendship. I do not know for how long this compromise is to be accepted. Let us hope that it will be for a very long time. The non-provided schools are now to get more public money. Having got it, I trust that a vigorous educational standard will be established. It will not be denied that large numbers of our non-provided schools fall very far short of what is decent and proper in modern times. I can only hope that the provisions of this Bill will enable them to come up to proper and appropriate standards of building.
I pass now to the first part of the Bill. I think that pretty well all that can be said has been said upon the matter. Hon. Members have spoken from various parts of the House as to the implications of the Measure for those who are charged with the task of administering education. The right hon. Gentleman last night, playfully it is true, invited us to make our minds up to-night as to whether we regarded local education authorities as angels or as the opposite extreme. I wish he could make up his mind one way or the other, because, if he could look upon them in the way in which a Minister of Education ought to look upon them, I think he would have reposed in them a

far greater measure of faith than, in fact, he does. Take the question of exemptions, for instance. So long as an employer of a child can assure the local authorities that the employment offered is beneficial, the local authority has no choice. It must give exemption. Hon. Members very often say—I admit they put it forward quite honestly and sincerely—that they are not convinced that it is good for all children to remain at school after 14. They differentiate between child and child and say that some will profit more by the education than others will. That is true, but under the operation of this Bill I submit to them that the child who is exempted will be not the slower child, but the smarter, brighter child, the child who would obviously benefit by a prolonged period of instruction. After all, if we were employers and desired to get a child in our factory or workshop and we had the offer of two children, one smart and the other not so smart, obviously we should choose the brighter child. It is the brighter children who stand the chance of securing employment, leaving a residuum of less bright children in the schools until they can secure employment later. It seems to me, therefore, that on that educational ground the provisions of the Bill are somewhat vicious.
I want to put another educational point which has so far not been developed by anyone. I return to the recommendations of the Hadow Committee. It is not right that hon. Members should think of raising the school-leaving age in vacuo. It must be associated with the other recommendations of the Hadow Committee, namely, reorganisation of education from the age of 11 upwards. The whole purpose of the Hadow reorganisation was to enable the child to receive one extra year of school life. When we think of the age of 11, we are apt to believe that every child from 11 to 14 gets three years, but, as a matter of fact, in practice, children do not go immediately at the age of 11 to a post-primary school, and consequently the average length of the present period from 11 to the school-leaving age is something like two years and three months, or two years and six months. If you add on to that the provision of this Bill, what happens? Do you now make the average of two years and three months, three years and three months?


You do not. A child may get a job within a month, and the result is that he gets, say, two years and five months, and another child a month later, and the consequence is that the last, the most vital and fruitful educational year, is broken into by the provisions of the Bill. I submit to the Minister that he really is ruining the educational fruitfulness of the proposal of the Hadow Committee.
Hon. Gentlemen have frequently in this House urged—and I agree that it is a proper point to make—the claims of agricultural areas and said that children in agricultural areas ought to have education with a more practical bias. I will not controvert that at the moment, but I submit to the Minister that in agricultural areas the tendency will be to exempt nearly all the children on the ground that the prevailing industry in the area is bound to be deemed to be beneficial employment. You cannot expect an area where the employment is solely agricultural to be declared by the local authority to be non-beneficial; it is bound to be, in their opinion, beneficial. Therefore the applications for exemption will be on a wholesale scale in this matter.
Last Saturday the conference of the Welsh Federation of Local Education Authorities was held in Wales, and some one moved that for Wales, at any rate, there should be an agreement among all the authorities that there should be one standard of exemption applied all round. Two representatives of agricultural areas raised an objection because they said, "We cannot have the same standard of life in the agricultural areas as may be appropriate in the more industrial areas." That is what will happen. You will have exemptions on a wholesale scale in agricultural areas. Moreover, in an area where juvenile employment is at a premium, and where there is a great urge for juvenile employment, the pressure will be so great that it will be too much to expect complete resistance to it, and once you begin to concede it to some employers, it will have to be conceded on a very large scale indeed. I do not propose to detain the House any further upon the matter, because the ground has been largely covered by speakers in various parts of the House, and I should only

be covering the ground a second time. However, my bon. Friends and I are glad that the second part of the Bill has proved acceptable, but in regard to the first part we to not believe that it will prove in practice easy and workable. We object, therefore, to the general tenor of the Bill. I cannot deny, however, one proposition. There are friends of mine—not many in this House I admit, but outside the House—who take the view that, in spite of its demerits, there is one merit in it, and that is, that it is worth while getting on to the Statute Book the declaration that the school-leaving age shall be 15. For what it is worth, I concede it. But in conceding that there is some advantage in getting that declaration upon the Statute Book, it is vitiated by the degree to which exemptions are to be possible. I deplore that fact.
I can understand the Minister saying, "But I am pledged by what I told the electorate." Governments must have regard to what they have told electors. I concede that, too, but it depends upon the emphasis, and perhaps I may venture to tell this story. It is the story of a Welsh Minister who went to a certain town, not his home town, and denounced a particular sin. He said, speaking of his home town, "The people of X would not do that." When he went back to his home town there was great excitement, for he had implied in the other place that his own people were much worse than those whom he was visiting. When they tackled him he said, "I will say the very same thing to you." When he got into the pulpit of his church he said, denouncing the sin, "The people of X would not do that." It is the emphasis. If you say that you are in favour of exemptions, that is all right, but did you assert that there was to be a right to exemptions? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] I wonder how it was put. It depends how the emphasis was placed. The right hon. Gentleman will be able to say, "There is the right in the Manifesto," I grant that, but it depends how you impressed this upon the electorate. I grant that a pledge was made, but I deny that anyone anticipated that even the pledge involved exemptions of a wholesale character. The Bi I undoubtedly will reach the Statute Book. It may be a landmark in our educational history. In 1830 or thereabouts the State made its


first grant to education; in 1870 came the general provision of elementary education; in 1902, municipalities were entitled to take part in secondary education. In 1918 there was another landmark, and perhaps this Bill again is another one. If so, I, for one, shall have no regrets.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY: This Bill falls naturally into two parts, and although there is a very definite connection between them, they raise entirely different questions. The effect of that division puts me in very considerable difficulties in replying to this Debate, because, whereas the first part of the Bill was of a controversial character in which the discussion was largely carried on along party lines, in the second part the co-operation of all interests and of all parties ensured a quick and happy issue to the deliberations. I should include among those who co-operated upon this second subject the Members of the party opposite. It is just the fact that I was in violent opposition to them in one part of the Bill, and received very considerable help from them in the second, which makes my task in winding up the Debate rather a. difficult one. I remember the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), who spent the first half of the Committee stage under a shower of verbal brick-bats and the second half of the Committee stage under a shower of oratorical bouquets. He ended as a statesman, having begun -with epithets which were far curter and not so complimentary. So that, in my speech to-night, when I am dealing with the party opposite, I have to try to separate Dr. Jekyll from Mr. Hyde, or, to put it more colloquially, I have to try to separate Lees from Smith and Morgan from Jones. I am sure that hon. Members who dealt me many a bard knock on the first part of the Bill will expect that I shall do my best to return those knocks with interest, but they will realise, at the same time, that it does not mean that I am either unmindful of, or ungrateful for, the very real assistance they gave me upon the second part of the Bill.
In the time which remains at my disposal the best thing for me to do is, first of all, to dispose of some of the preliminary points before I tackle, as I want to do, the whole question of exemptions. To deal briefly with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Holder-

ness (Mr. Savery), I would tell him, that in my personal capacity I have made a rule for many years never to give a tip, and as President of the Board of Education, I am under a similar obligation never to recommend a school book, but as a preliminary to a solution of this admittedly important problem, I think that he will do well to have a conversation with the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Macmillan) who is responsible for the distribution of a large part of the literature enjoyed by our schools.
The first point with which I want to deal is that of the number of exemptions that are to be expected. It is a point with which I dealt at considerable length on the Second Reading, and it was dealt with at length when the Bill was in Committee. In spite of the arguments I have advanced, hon. Members have repeated, without any regard to the arguments, the statements they have made before, that the Bill would lead to wholesale exemptions. They have never adduced any ground for the mathematical calculations which they adopt. Their proportions of exemptions vary from 80, 90 to 100, and even more per cent., and I noticed in one quarter the other day that it was stated that this would actually lead to fewer children staying on than at present. In My Second Reading speech I tried to make an estimate of the numbers not for party political purposes, but for the purposes of the Financial Resolution of the Bill, in order to try to give an honest picture to Members of the House of the financial cost of the proposals. I am sure that hon. Members would not suggest that in that I should try to colour the estimate simply to suit the arguments that I was afterwards going to advance upon the Bill.
It is really unfair to reproduce this statement, which I see time after time, of the 90 per cent. of exemptions based on the existing by-law areas. I do not believe that you can take the existing by-law areas as a test. They have none of the restrictions laid down in this Bill, none of the protection against their neighbours, and I think, therefore, they are not a fair guide. But if they were, this test of the percentage of exemptions is unfair. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) gave an exaggerated example, but one which could happen, that if every child left the day before the end of the period you


would have 100 per cent. exemptions, but, in fact, the school age would have been raised to 15. The school age has been raised effectively to 14 years and six months, and I am entitled to assume that the additional safeguards in this Bill, the protection against neighbours and the incentive given to reorganisation, will result, as I estimated on Second Reading, in an immediate raising of the age to 14 years and nine months.
That may not be the whole thing of raising the age to 15, but nobody will deny that if that takes place it will be an effective contribution to educational progress, and one that cannot be referred to as a purely negligible and window-dressing measure. The right hon. Gentleman who tried to destroy my estimate on the ground that there would be a shortage of juvenile labour, and that the pressure on going into employment would be increased, defeated his own end. His argument was that there would be fewer children, there would be more competition for them, wages would go up and for that reason parents would want them to go. But if that is so, what becomes of the argument that the only reason for children going into industry before 15 is cheap labour? If the future is to see juvenile labour becoming dearer, it means that there will be an increased and not a reduced number staying in the schools.
The second point with which I want to deal is that raised by the right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) and the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland), the point raised so many times for the purpose of showing how impracticable and impossible is this Bill because of the difficulty of local authorities in estimating the amount of accommodation which might be required. The right hon. Gentleman said he would take as a test of my sincerity the answer I should give to local authorities on that point. I can give him that answer with complete clarity. I should not discourage any local authority from making provision immediately for the raising of the school age on the basis that 100 per cent. of the children were to stay in the school.

Sir P. HARRIS: What about the teachers?

Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Baronet might allow me to develop the point I

am making. We are shortly to issue a pamphlet dealing with elementary school buildings, and I may quote to the House a paragraph on this s abject which will appear in these suggestions:
New senior schools should be planned with a school-leaving age of 15 in view, and though it may not always be possible to estimate the number of children who will remain to that age or beyond, and account must be taken of special local circumstances, it will be reasonable to take a four-years' course as the normal standard of provision.
It might be said that that means great extravagance, because local authorities will be called on to provide accommodation which may remain empty for some years. That argument would be sound only if we were dealing with junior and not with senior schools. The real expense of the senior school is not the provision of the ordinary classrooms but the gymnasium, science room, playing field, facilities for gardening—they will all be required whether the proportion of exemptions is 10 or 50 per cent., or, as hon. Members opposite say, 90 per cent. The only expenditure that might be wasted is that on classrooms, and it will be interesting if I tell the House of an inquiry I have carried out in an existing by-law area, Chesterfield, which adopted the additional year three years ago, where the local authority has shown great energy and enthusiasm in working it, where it has met with satisfactory results, and where the proportion of exemptions is something like 70 per cent. Inquiries I have made there show that there is enough accommodation in the senior schools to take 100 per cent. of the children between 14 and 15 now, and yet in the whole of the town, with all that potential surplus accommodation, there is only one classroom not being used. That will demonstrate that this encouragement we shall give to local authorities to provide now for the full 100 per cent. which we hope. to get in future will not mean that there will be for long periods a large amount of accommodation lying idle and unused.
One word on the subject of the brighter child. That I believe to be a pure educational fallacy. I speak with deference to hon. Members who have much more experience than I have of educational methods, but let us remember that we are dealing here with children in school


from whom the scholastic cream has already been taken. What are called the brighter children are usually those who are developing fast, whose curiosity and restlessness are developing early. It is found that such children in many schools to-day are able to get less satisfaction from education, and most from entering into life outside. Who are the dull type that Members complain of being left at school? They are nearly always the backward and retarded children to whom the extra year in school is of much more value than to those who are called the brighter children.
Passing to the general argument on exemption, I am not to-night going to refer to the pledge. A pledge was given, and in this Bill is being observed. But, after all, a pledge is made only because it is part of a policy, and a policy presumably is decided on only because those who decide on it consider that it is right. I am not going to shelter myself behind any pledge given at the general election; I am going to defend this Bill because I believe it to be right on educational grounds. I dealt on the Second Reading with other grounds, financial, historical and social, which have to be taken into account in any decision of this kind. A great deal of play, some a little unfair and some perhaps too bitter, has been made on certain speeches by the noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl). I do not pretend always that I agree with her in all her ideas or sentiments, but she has done a very great deal for education, and has shown a real belief in education. When she is discussing questions of employment do not let us forget that to a great many people in this world employment is, and under any system will remain, a great part of life, and if education is a preparation for life, what is the good of discussing that preparation unless we are entitled at the same time to discuss the life for which we are preparing?
I am to-night going to deal with this matter entirely from the educational point of view, because I sincerely believe that, apart from election pledges, and from financial or industrial considerations, educationally the method we are adopting in this Bill is a right one, the one most likely to endure and most likely to do good to education. Do not let us

forget that education is not only educational administration. We are sometimes apt to forget it, and many of the arguments advanced against this Bill have been based on ease of administration. We want ease of administration when we can get it, but we cannot put that in the balance against education. Do not let us forget that the success of education in a country is not to be measured in terms of statistics, but in terms of the belief of the general public in its value and their desire to share in it. I agree that by the first test, that of statistics, everything shows how successful education has been in this country. The number of secondary school places, the expenditure on education, reduction in classes—every possible statistic of that kind shows what an increasing value in this country education has.
Can we say that the second test is so successfully answered? Can we say that public opinion is as satisfied, as perhaps some of us more intimately concerned with education are, of the value to the children of the education that we give? Special education, yes; and technical, secondary and university. But will public opinion answer that question on elementary education as readily or as fully or in the terms that we do? It has given me some cause for thought during the course of this Debate in listening to arguments used by bon. Members opposite. They have taken the child—how can you expect him to do any good when his eyes are always on the door and he is wanting to get out of school? They have taken the parent—how can you expect him not to take the shortsighted view of improved economic conditions? The local sub-committee—that includes a number of people not interested in education; you cannot depend on them. Even the local education committee, believing as they do in education—you cannot trust them to stand up to the public demand in their locality. If there are all these difficulties in all these quarters we have not yet got that unanimous answer from public opinion that education ought to, and will, get.
There are a great many mistaken people in this country who believe that education as a preparation for life is out of touch with life itself, who do not believe anything like as strongly as we do in the value of this extra year at school, and


who do not see that the child who leaves school at 14, in its work, or its leisure, or its responsibilities as a citizen, is necessarily going to be handicapped through life as compared with the child who leaves at 15. I believe that in the past a great deal of that criticism was true. Education then—and I am not talking about the remote past—was, at any rate, becoming more and more out of touch with life. I do not believe that it is true to-day with the new concepts which have come over education, and in those places where these new ideas are being put into force. The chairman of the Education Committee of the London County Council, in a letter in the "Times," referred to this point of the new practical view of the last four years; the new view, as I would prefer to call it, of humanism in education. When we have that view, then public opinion will answer the question in the affirmative, but we have to get it over first.
On the question of reorganisation, there are people who say that we must reorganise 50 or 52 per cent. Reorganisation does not mean just dividing senior and junior children and putting them into different schools. That is not going to convince the parents. It has to go much deeper than that. It has to go to the buildings, to the teachers, into what is taught and the manner in which it is taught. In that reorganisation we have not yet got very far. That is why I sincerely believe that this Bill is a challenge to education. This Bill will succeed only if education can meet that challenge, and if education can get the public to answer that question in the affirmative. It is said: "The Board of Education, those who are responsible for education, ought to be leading public opinion." That is all very well. It should lead public opinion, but it should not lead it from so far in front that public opinion cannot even see it.
I am always being told: "What a niggardly, miserable, little Bill this is. Look at the great Education Act of 1918, which was passed by your predecessor, Mr. Fisher." What made that a great Act? What differentiated it from other Acts? That part of the Act which dealt with compulsory continuation schools. That was a proposal which was blessed by all the people who are now opposing the proposal of this Bill. The Association

of Education Committees, the National Union of Teachers, and the Workers' Educational Association were all in favour of that great educational reform. Where are the compulsory continuation schools to-day? I think they are confined to one town in the country. Why? Because that reform, welcomed as it was by educationists, was out of touch with public opinion in this country. I hope as a result of this Bill to get at least some more solid memorial than the plaudits of pundits.
I want to say a few words on the second part of the Bill. It is a remarkable fact, to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite called attention, that the second part of the Bill passed its Report stage without a Division. That is not a matter of congratulation for the Government; it is a matter of congratulation for the House and the country. I can say that because, although many hon. Members have been very complimentary and kind in what they have said of me, I recognise perfectly well that it is not due to any Minister. It could not have been due to any Minister. It is due to the co-operation of all the interests concerned, the churches, the teachers, the local authorities, the various political parties, who were prepared to come together in a new atmosphere of conciliation and to show that they were able to give as well as to take. I should like to pay particular tribute to the representatives of all those interests who were on the Committee upstairs. The fires are damped down, but they are still there. An incautious word, a tactless remark, a failure to recognise the point of view of others, would very soon have brought them to the surface again. It is only because that tactless remark was never made, and that lack of generosity was never shown, that we have been able to arrive at what, I believe, is a satisfactory conclusion. It does not mean that there is any less real belief in the fundamentals of religion or of education, or that people hold their principles any less strongly than they used to do in the past.
This is not a settlement that has come from boredom or indifference, but a settlement which has come because people have realised that all that they need hold to are their principles and that their prejudices can be discarded. Above all, it has come because of the


interests of the child, which have been ill-served in the past by some of the controversies which have gone on. I have never pretended that this was meant to be a, great, final settlement of this problem. It is only a measure to meet an emergency. It depends for its success upon good will. It is based upon good will. The plan is one of voluntary agreements between managers and authorities in the belief that in those agreements they will be able to safeguard their own point of view and yet be able to come to a common measure of conciliation together. I believe that the good will is there. I believe that these agreements can be made. If we can do this, then it will be best for all of us, best for the churches, best for the local authorities and best for education. Only if we are mistaken, if that good will is not there, and if these agreements cannot be made, then shall we have to say that what we thought the best way has failed, and some alternative solution will have to be faced.
There was one point which raised some difficulty, and that is the question of Clause 12. It is an agreement between the Church of England and the other interests, and is a concession made on good will. Before the Committee stage the Catholics were rather frightened of their position under that Clause, but I believe that the Amendments which were accepted in Committee by everyone without any division will go a long way to remove those fears and will stop the charge, which I should not like to be made, that we were interfering with the Cowper-Temple Clause. That is a thing that no Minister of Education would touch unless he was doing it by agreement with the parties whose interests might seem to suffer. I thought that, just as I had got an agreement with the Church of England, I had an agreement with the Roman Catholics; but I was mistaken. They were right in saying that no agreement had been made. But I believe their interests have been safeguarded, and that the practical effects so far as they are concerned, will be negligible. Indeed, the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) expressed the view in Committee that they can now feel safe.
An Amendment has been moved by hon. Members opposite for the rejection of the Bill on the question of exemptions.

I am told by several speakers that there is an immense public opinion behind their demand to oppose exemptions. I do not know where that public opinion is. I do not know whether hon. Members opposite have found it in their post-bags or at their meetings, but I will accept what hon. Members have said, and I am prepared to meet their challenge. The position is quite a simple one. This Bill does not come into effect until the autumn of 1939. During those three years much useful work will be done in re-organisation, in the building of schools, in the appointment of teachers, in the development of new training and curricula—three years which would have been occupied in exactly the same way if hon. Members opposite had been able to introduce a Bill which allowed no exemptions.
Not very long after the appointed day the natural life of this Parliament will come to an end, and we shall once again go to our constituents. Hon. Members opposite will be able to test then the strength of the public opinion for their proposals and against my Bill. They will be able to take a vote of the electors upon it, and they will have plenty of time for reflection. They will be able when that time comes to do what they have not done hitherto, and that is to specify to the electors the exact amount of financial inducement which they are prepared to offer to them if they will send their children to school. Sir Charles Trevelyan began the bidding five years ago at 5s. a week, but I think hon. Members below the Gangway and elsewhere will be raising the bid before the time of the election comes along. Then they will be able to explain to the electors the precise form of the means test which they propose to institute in connection with the maintenance allowances. No doubt they will be able to explain to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) how it is that in this connection the means test is not a means test.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: There will be no means test.

Mr. STANLEY: That is not the official policy of the hon. Member's party, and they will have to fight it out. They will have to think of an answer to the question of the man with four children under 14 at school, who will say: "Why am I getting nothing, when the man with one


child at school between 14 and 15 is to get so many shillings a week from the State?" They will have to think what the answer will be, and perhaps they will bear in mind a maxim that they have used in the past, that in the long run everything falls on the worker. I am perfectly prepared when the time comes to face their challenge, and I await the result with calm and with confidence.

Mr. MACMILLAN: rose—

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): rose in his place, and claimed to move,"That the Question he now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 261; Noes, 101.

Division No. 208.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Drewe, C.
Latham, Sir P.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G,
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Leckle, J. A.


Albery, I. J.
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Leighton. Major B. E. P.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Duncan, J. A. L.
Levy, T.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L, C. M. S.
Dunglass, Lord
Lewis, O.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Eastwood, J. F.
Liddall, W. S.


Assheton, R.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lloyd, G. W.


Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Ellis, Sir G.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Elmley, Viscount
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Atholl, Duchess of
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lyons, A. M.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Entwistle, C. F.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Balfour, Capt. H. H.(Isle of Thanet)
Ersklne Hill, A. G.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Findlay, Sir E.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N.
Fleming, E. L.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)


Bernays, R. H.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Blair, Sir R.
Furness, S. N.
Macdonald, Capt. p. (isle of Wight)


Blaker, Sir R.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
McKie, J. H.


Blindell, Sir J.
Ganzonl, Sir J.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.


Bossom, A. C.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.


Boulton, W. W.
Gledhill, G.
Magnay, T.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Glyn. Major Sir R. G. C.
Makins, Brlg.-Gen. E.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Mannlngham-Buller. Sir M.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Markham, S. F.


Brawn, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Bull, B. B.
Grldley, Sir A. B.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)


Burghley, Lord
Grimston, R. V.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Butler, R. A.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Mltcheson, Sir G. G.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Moreing, A. C.


Cary, R. A.
Guy, J. C. M.
Morgan, R. H.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hannah, I. C.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Harbord, A.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Harvey, G.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Munro, P.


Channon, H.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Nicolson Hon. H. G.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Chater, D.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Ormsby Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Orr-Ewing, l. L.


Cobb, Sir C. S.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Palmer, G. E. H.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey)
Patrick, C. M.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Peake, O


Colman, N. C. D.
Holdsworth, H.
Penny, Sir G.


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Petherick, M.


Compton, J.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Plckthorn, K. W. M.


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Pilkingtcn, R.


Cooke, J, D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Ponsonbv, Col. C. E.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (Wst'r S.G'gs)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Porritt, R. W.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh.W.)
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Power, Sir J. C.


Craddock. Sir R. H.
Hulbert, N. J
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Crooke, J. S.
Hume, Sir G. H
Radford, E. A.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hunter, T.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Groom-Johnson, R. P.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Ramsbotham, H.


Crossley, A. C.
Jackson, Sir H.
Rankin. R.


Crowder, J. F. E.
James, Wing-commander A. W.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Jarvls, Sir J. J.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Culverwell, C. T.
Joel, D. J. B.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Remer, J. R.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Rickards, G. W. (Sklpton)


Davison, Sir W. H.
Keeling, E. H.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


De Chair, S. S.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)


Denville, Alfred
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Dodd, J. S.
Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Rowlands, G.




Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Wakefleld, W. W.


Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Salmon, Sir I.
Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.
Wallace, Captain Euan


Salt, E. W.
Spens, W. P.
Ward, Lieut.-col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Wardlaw-Milne. Sir J. S.


Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Warrender, Sir V.


Savery, Servington
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Scott, Lord William
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Selley, H. R.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Shakespeare, G. H.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Suetor, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Wlndsor-Clive, Lieut. -Coionel G.


Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Sutcllffe, H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Tasker, Sir R. I.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Simmonds, O. E.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's u.' B'lf'st),
Titchfield, Marquess of
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Tree, A. R. L. F.



Smithers, Sir W.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Tufnell; Lieut.-Com. R. L.
Major George Davies and Lieut.-


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Turton, R. H.
Colonel Llewellin.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Grimths, J. (Lianelly)
Oliver, G. H.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Groves, T. E.
Owen, Major G,


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Paling, W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Parker, H. J. H.


Barr, J.
Hardie, G. D.
Potts, J.


Bellenger, F.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Price, M. P.


Benson, G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
pritt, D. N.


Bromfield, W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Qulbell, D. J. K.


Brooke, W.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Rltson, J.


Buchanan, G.
Holland, A.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Burke, W. A.
Hollins, A.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Cape, T.
Hopkin, D.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Cassells, T.
Jagger, J.
Sexton, T. M.


Cluse, W. S.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Shinwell, E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Silverman, S. S.


Cocks, F. S.
John, W.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cove, W. G.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Daggar, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Kirkwood, D.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davies. R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lawson, J. J.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Day, H.
Lee. F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Leonard, W.
Thorne, W.


Ede, J. c.
Leslie, J. R.
Thurtle, E.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Macdonald. G. (Ince)
Tinker, J.J


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
McEntee, V. La T.
Watson, W. McL.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
McGhee, H. G.
Westwood, J.


Foot. D. M.
MacLaren, A,
White, H. Graham


Gardner, B. W.
Maclean, N.
Whiteley, W.


Garro-Jones, G. M.
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Marklew, E.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Mathers, G.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Maxtor, J.



Grenfell, D. R.
Messer, F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Mr. Harold Macmillan and Mr.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Naylor, T. E.
Loftus.

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 128.

Division No. 209.]
AYES.
[7.40 p.m.


Acland-Troyto, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Blair, Sir R.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Blaker, Sir R.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)


Agnew, Lieut. -Comdr. P. G.
Blindell, Sir J.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)


Albery, I. J
Bottom, A. C.
Channon, H.


Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.
Boulton, W. W.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Clarry, Sir Reginald


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Briscoe, Capt. R G.
Cobb, Sir C. S.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Colfox, Major W. P.


Assheton, R.
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.


Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Colman, N. C. D.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Bull. B. B.
Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.


Atholl, Duchess of
Burghley, Lord
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Butler, R. A.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)


Belfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Dull (W'st'r S.G'gs)


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Cartland, J. R. H.
Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'nburgh,W.)


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N.
Cary, R. A.
Craddock, Sir R. H.


Bernays, R. H.
Castlereagh, Viscount
Crooke. J. S.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.




Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Joel, D. J. B.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Crossley, A. C.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Remer, J. R.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Rickards, G W (Skipton)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Keeling, E. H.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Culverwell, C. T.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Keyes Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Ross Taylor. W. (Woodbridge)


Davies, Major G F. (Yeovil)
Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Rowlands, G.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Lamb, Sir J. O.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Latham, Sir P.
Russell. S. H. M. (Darwen)


Denville. Alfred
Leckle, J. A.
Salmon, Sir I.


Dodd, J. S
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Salt, E. W.


Dorman-Smitn, Major R. H.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)


Drewe, C.
Levy, T.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Lewis, O.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Liddall, W. S.
Savery, Servington


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Lloyd, G. W.
Scott, Lord William


Duncan, J. A. L.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr O. S.
Selley, H. R.


Dunglass, Lord
Loftus, P. C.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Eastwood, J. F.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lyons, A. M.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Ellis, Sir G.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Elmley, Viscount
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Simmonds, O. E.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Simon, Rt. Hon Sir J. A.


Entwistle, C. F.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st),


Erskine Hill, A. G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M (Ross)
Smiles, Lieut. -Colonel Sir W D.


Findlay, Sir E.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Smithers, Sir W.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Furness, S. N.
Mckie, J. H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Fyfe. D. P. M.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Ganzonl, Sir J.
Macnamara, Capt J. R. J.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Magnay, T.
Spender-Clay. Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Gledhill, G.
Makins, Brig. -Gen. E.
Spens, W. P.


Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Manningham-Buller. Sir M.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fyide)


Gower, Sir R. V.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Graham Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Markham, S. F.
Strauss, E. A (Southwark, N.)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Strauss H. G. (Norwich)


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Grimston, R. V.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Guest. Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Moore, Lieut. -Col. T. C. R.
Sueter. Rear- Admiral Sir M. F.


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Moreing, A. C.
Sutcllffe, H.


Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Morgan, R. H.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Guy, J. C. M.
Morris, J. P. (Salford. N.)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Hanbury, Sir C.
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Hannah, I. C.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Titchfleld. Marquess of


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Mulrhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Tree, A. R L F.


Harbord, A.
Munro, P.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon G C.


Harvey, G.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com R. L.


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Turton, R. H.


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon W. G.
Wakefield, W. W.


Heneage, Lieut. -Colonel A. P.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Palmer, G. E. H.
Wallace, Captain Euan


Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Patrick, C. M.
Ward, Lieut.-col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Peake, O.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey)
Penny, Sir G.
Warrender, Sir V.


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Petherick, M.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Hore-Belisha, Rt Hon. L.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Wedderburn H. J. S.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Pilklngton, R.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Ponsonby, Col C E.
Williams. H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Porritt, R. W.
Windsor-Cilve, Lieut. -Colonel G.


Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Power, Sir J. C.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hulbert, N. J.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Withers. Sir J. J.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Radford, E. A.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Hunter, T.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Inskip Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Ramsbotham, H.



Jackson, Sir H.
Rankin, R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


James, Wing-Commander A. W.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Captain Hope and Lieut.-Colonel


Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Llewellin.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Brooke, W.
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Buchanan, G.
Davies, R J. (Westhoughton)


Adamson, W. M.
Burke, W. A.
Day, H.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Cape, T.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)


Ammon, C. G.
Cassells, T.
Ede, J C.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Chater, D.
Edwarcs, A. (Middlesbrough E.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Cluse, W. S.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)


Barr, J.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)


Batey, J.
Cocks, F. S.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)


Bellenger, F.
Compton, J.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr R. T. H.


Benson, G.
Cove, W. G.
Foot, O M.


Broad, F. A.
Daggar, G.
Frankel, O.


Bromfield, W.
Dalton, H.
Gardner. B. W.







Garro Jones, G. M.
Lawson, J. J.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Leach, W.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Lee, F.
Rowson, G.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Leonard, W.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Leslie, J. R.
Sexton, T. M.


Grenfell, D. R.
Lunn, W.
Shinwell, E.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Silverman, S. S.


Griffiths. G. A. (Hemsworth)
McEntee, V. La T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Griffiths. J. (Lianelly)
McGhee, H. G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Groves, T. E.
MacLaren, A.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Maclean, N.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Macmillan, H (Stockton. on-Tees)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Hardle, G. D.
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Harris, Sir P. A.
Marklew, E.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Maxton, J.
Thorne, W.


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Messer, F.
Thurtle, E.


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Tinker, J. J.


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Viant, S. P.


Holdsworth, H.
Naylor, T. E.
Watson, W. McL.


Holland, A.
Oliver, G. H.
Westwood. J.


Hollins, A.
Owen, Major G.
White, H. Graham


Hopkin, D.
Paling, W.
Whiteley, W.


Jagger, J.
Parker, H. J. H.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Parkinson, J. A.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


John, W.
Potts, J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Price, M. P.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Pritt, D. N.



Kelly, W. T.
Quibell, D. J. K.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Riley, B.
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Mathers.


Kirkwood, D.
Ritson, J.



Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Mr. THURTLE: On a point of Order. Do I understand that the Question whether the Bill should be read a Third time should be put to the House or not?

Mr. SPEAKER: Under the Standing Orders on the Second Reading and Third Reading of a Bill, if it is decided that any words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question, the Speaker shall forthwith declare the Bill read a Second or Third time, as the case may be.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Orders of the Day — LONDON AND MIDDLESEX (IMPROVEMENTS, ETC.) BILL.

(By Order.)

Order for Consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."

7.51 p.m.

Mr. W. ASTOR: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
This Bill revives an old scheme to provide a new western exit from London. The opposition to the Bill is based purely on engineering and traffic grounds. I am aware that there are a large number of eminent authorities dealing with the

traffic of London in support of the Bill, but those who make so bold as to oppose it are not entirely overawed by the formidable phalanx of authorities. When one considers what has happened to the traffic of London in the past, one is a little less awed, especially when we remember how late London was in the introduction of modern developments like the one-way street. We also remember how long it was before the traffic authorities of London saw fit to introduce traffic lights, which had been used for many years in other countries, and how the London traffic authorities missed opportunities of making new arterial roads out of London with proper pathways, when they had the chance of buying the land on each side and making a proper and ordered development. The provision of proper amenities has been neglected; indeed, the London traffic authorities have been old-fashioned and done things which represent the ideas of 10 years past. When one remembers all these things and looks at this scheme, one cannot have quite the same respect for it.
An arterial road, to fulfil its purpose and to justify a very large expenditure of money and a large destruction of good property, must, in accordance with modern ideas, be a real through way for traffic. There should be as few crossings as possible. This scheme which has been preferred to the alternative scheme of bridging over a portion of the Great Western Railway, has a large number of


crossings, compared with only two crossings in the alternative scheme, and will hinder and prevent the free flow of traffic. Nor should there be a large number of shops or private residences abutting on the road, in front of which butchers' and bakers' carts may be standing. On the Great West Road you get that kind of thing, a number of vans standing on each side of the road, stopping the free flow of traffic. It is even more necessary that there should not be houses and shops on the side of an arterial road because of the danger of children running out of houses and getting involved in an accident.

Mr. ELLIS SMITH: When you go by in your Rolls Royce.

Mr. AST0R: I have not got one. The alternative scheme of going over the railway would have no houses or shops abutting on the road and would, therefore, lessen the possible danger of children being killed. Under this scheme there will be every opportunity for children running out of the houses on each side of the road to be killed, whereas under the alternative proposal there is a possibility of avoiding that danger. This scheme is nothing new. It is an old scheme, and an old-fashioned one. Its opponents, however, are quite prepared to admit that it is the cheapest scheme, but when you are dealing with long-distance development of London traffic you can be pound foolish. Take one instance. The Great West Road was built as a, single road. It has now to be divided into two roads. With a little foresight this might have been done originally, and at less cost. It has to be done now, in a less satisfactory manner, because the cheapest scheme was accepted in the first instance. Although it is the cheapest scheme, the money will be spent largely on compensating property owners. Under the alternative scheme a much larger proportion of the money, in fact nearly all of it, would go in work, wages and materials. It is true that the alternative scheme might cost more, but when you think of municipal and national finance, the scheme will destroy a large amount of rateable value and give no increment in return. I am sure that the supporters of the Bill will make much of the expense of the alternative scheme, but I hope the

House will not be pound foolish, and will take the long view. We do not accept the enormous difference. in the figures between the two schemes which has been suggested by the supporters of the Bill. The difference is much smaller than they declare.
Nor do we accept the plea that by opposing the Bill we are holding up something which as vital and urgent. It has been said upstairs that it may be seven years before the new road is open; and the proposal has been considered for 25 years. Therefore we think that one more year's consideration and a better plan is not an unreasonable proposal. There is one other objection to this scheme which I am raising at the instance of St. Paul's School, a portion of whose playing-ground will be cut off. The supporters of the Bill point out, quite rightly, that only a small portion of the field of the school will be cut off, but the authorities point out that in a field of this size the problem of keeping a sufficient turf on alt area on which a large number of boys are playing is very difficult, and that if the Bill is passed, instead of having three Rugby football pitches, they will have only two, and that as one of these pitches will have to be rested each year on account of the turf, they will he left with only one field available for play. They are also going to lose three cricket pitches. Already they are rather constrained so far as area is concerned, and it is impossible to restrict the field of play for cricket without spoiling the game and making it difficult. I hope the House will think that those are convincing reasons. I understand it is not in order for me to expound fully the alternative scheme, but I think it is obvious, in view of the fact that the present scheme has many crossings and does not give that free flow of traffic which should be given, Via, the extra money would be well spent.
From the beginning we have tried to keep this an engineering and not a political dispute, and if to some extent it has become a political issue, I am afraid that is due to the lack of tact, shall I say, which the London County Council has displayed in dealing with the opponents of the Bill. We were given a very short time in which to prepare our opposition. When it was asked in the County Hall in the most courteous


fashion that certain figures which were available should be given, they were not given to us, nor were we given the chance to get ready the alternative scheme as fully and as carefully as we would have liked. Therefore, we ask that this House should reject the Bill and that the matter should be reconsidered, not only because of the extent to which it affects this particular district., but because the general problem of arterial roads must be looked at in the most modern spirit. We ought not to be doing things as usual, about 10 years behind the ideas of countries which are more advanced on traffic matters. We should be leading, not following about five lengths behind.
One of the facts which is brought out by the supporters of this Bill is that there are certain statutory obligations on railroad companies which make an alternative scheme of bridging over railways more expensive. They say truthfully that to some extent they are bound down by restrictions which are not in accordance with the most modern engineering practice and which were devised a considerable time ago. Consequently, we appeal to the Minister of Transport to see, in the next 12 months —in which time we hope he will have an opportunity to consider this—how far the statutory restrictions on railroads in this matter are obsolete and could be revised. I will give one example of which the House probably knows already. The restrictions were devised at a time when doors swung open and needed a larger clearance. Now the vast majority of trains on this particular railroad have sliding doors. It is that sort of thing which needs investigation and which might call for a general Bill, so that these private Bills could be based on the most modern engineering practice. I can assure the supporters of this Bill that if it is rejected we will give them the fullest co-operation and the fullest good will in the examination of modern alternatives; we will do our best to get a Western exit out of London which will really avoid accidents, which will facilitate the flow of traffic and will last for a long time, and will be something of which London can be proud.

Mr. R. C. MORRISON: Would the hon. Member be good enough to say who he means by "We"? On whose behalf is he speaking?

Mr. ASTOR: I am speaking on behalf of myself and of my hon. Friends who are opponents of the Bill.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. HAROLD MITCHELL: I beg to second the Amendment. I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the Mover of the Amendment, and to ay that I know the local authorities concerned will do everything they can, if the Bill is rejected, to co-operate in the production of an alternative scheme. I wish also to say that those of us who are opposing the Bill feel that inadequate time has been given to us and that insufficient consultation took place before the Bill was introduced. The borough which I represent feels that very strongly indeed. I think no one would suggest that an improvement of the western exit from London is not needed, but the crux of the problem is Hammersmith Broadway. My hon. Friend has dealt with the objections to the Bill principally in so far as they concern that portion of the road which runs through Fulham up to Hammersmith Broadway. I wish to consider some of the objections to the Bill which appertain to the other part of the road from the time it passes Hammersmith Broadway until it reaches the Great West Road, that portion which runs through Chiswick.
Our objection, in the first place, is that under this Bill there is to be constructed a great new arterial road parallel to an existing main road and running within a few hundred yards of it. We say that that is absolutely contrary to the best principles of planning. Further, the road would go right through the heart of a quiet residential area, much valuable property would be destroyed and rateable value lost, and indeed the whole character of the district would be changed and destroyed. Perhaps the worst feature of the Bill is the extent to which it would have a deleterious effect upon open spaces. For example, it would go right through the centre of Homefields recreation ground and would also affect part of the ground of Chiswick House. Many hon. Members on this side feel that the London County Council do not care very much for open spaces, and I feel that in this case they have infected the Middlesex County Council with the same spirit.

Mr. MESSER: Is not Chiswick under the Middlesex County Council? Has it anything to do with London?

Mr. MITCHELL: I am aware of that, as I happen to live in Chiswick. I would remind the hon. Member, however, that the residents of Chiswick are entitled to protest against the open spaces in their borough being destroyed. Whether it is the Middlesex County Council—

Mr. MESSER: The hon. Member is blaming London.

Mr. MITCHELL: I am blaming the London County Council and the Middlesex County Council, but I am saying that the London County Council cares nothing for open spaces and has infected the Middlesex County Council with the same spirit. I think it is unfortunate that the Ministry of Transport should apparently have been persuaded to take the same line of action. I admit at once that it is cheaper to go through open spaces, where it may not be necessary to pay very much in compensation, than to go through property, but even in these days when the Road Fund is becoming somewhat slender, I do not think that open spaces should be destroyed. The case of the Homefields recreation ground is a particularly bad one. It consists of 10 acres and was secured by the Metropolitan County Gardens Association from the vendors at half the market value on the express condition that it should be maintained in perpetuity as a public open space. It may be said that that does not matter very much, since Chiswick is a district having many open spaces, but I would remind hon. Members that the Homefields recreation ground lies very near to Hammersmith, which is very badly off indeed, so far as open spaces are concerned. It is absolutely wrong that property which has been expressly bought to be maintained as an open space should be wantonly and unnecessarily destroyed.
It was suggested in Committee that a piece of land equivalent to the amount destroyed should be provided by the promoters, but this was turned down by the Committee apparently on the score of expense. It seems unfortunate that we should economise at the expense of our open spaces. The Parliamentary Secretary made a speech the other day in which he said:

I have been horrified at the lighthearted way in which some of our M.Ps. talked of throwing out the Great West Bill for reasons wholly inadequate and parochial.
Hon. Members opposite seem to share the same point of view. I would remind hon. Members that that speech was made at the National Safety Congress. Now, if there were no other reasons for rejecting this Bill I suggest that it ought to be rejected on the grounds that this new road, which is designed to carry a vast volume of fast-moving traffic, would go right past two schools, housing almost 1,000 children. Does anybody suggest that that would contribute to safety?

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Can the hon. Gentleman mention an alternative route on which there would not be schools?

Mr. MITCHELL: Yes. On the Chiswick High Road the hon. Member will not find schools housing 1,000 children. It might be thought at least that this new so called by-pass would be the last word in modern construction. After all, the scheme is to cost over £2,500,000, more than half of which is to be provided by the taxpayers. It is nothing of the kind. I would remind the House that it is to go through a residential area. Many local residents in the area have cars and there will be a great deal of local traffic of one sort and another. Many people living in the southern part of Chiswick would have to cross the road in order to reach Chiswick High Road to do their shopping. I suggest that a road of this sort ought to have service roads on either side if it is to come up to modern standards. We are being asked to undertake this very large expenditure without having a really modern and up-to-date road in the end. I suggest, further, that the present Chiswick High Road, which could be widened, is a direct link between the Great West Road and London whereas the new so-called by-pass, which would be a longer route, would go through a purely residential area. It is true that the present Chiswick High Road has a bad name for accidents, but due to the admirable work of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport that has been very largely done away with during the last few months by the removal of trolley buses and by the installation of traffic lights. Now the Chiswick High Road compares favourably with other roads.
As recently as 1926, a Royal Commission on Cross River Traffic advised an alternative scheme. All the promoters of the Bill can say on this point is that:
The Royal Commission were working under stress of great urgency.
They presumably infer that the Royal Commission had not given sufficient consideration to the point. I feel that my hon. Friends may prefer to be guided by an impartial Royal Commission rather than by a Bill promoted by these county councils.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: What date was that?

Mr. MITCHELL: That was in 1926, which is quite a recent date, and the problem has not greatly changed since then. You will find the real reason for this road in a statement issued by the promoters, in which they say:
The reasons for embarking on these works which have in character been mainly the construction of new roads, have not been to meet any peculiar need of the county of Middlesex, but generally to relieve unemployment, to improve the means of access for the increasing amount of traffic to and from the Metropolis and the North and West…and the trend of industry to the South, involving the erection of modern factories on the Western side of London.
The statement goes on to the recent construction of the Chertsey by-pass road leading to the new Chiswick bridge. They infer that unless you build this new road, you will not be able to have the full volume of traffic along the Chertsey bypass. I protest emphatically against the principle of building the Chertsey by-pass road and a new bridge, and then coming along, when you have done that and it has proved to be unnecessary and insufficiently used, and saying that you must spend £2,500,000 on building a, new road in order to make sufficient use of the road and bridge already built which have not been found to be successful. I suggest, in regard to the argument about relieving unemployment, that although I represent a constituency in Middlesex which is not unfavourable to new industries, the general policy of this House should be not to spend money to encourage industries to come to the South, but rather to encourage industries to go to the distressed areas. We have put forward a reasonable alternative scheme, and I say again that we realise that something must be done and are prepared

to consider any alternative scheme, but we feel that this particular scheme is not the right one and that the whole matter has been rushed.
In conclusion I urge that the proposed new road is very expensive. The Severn bridge scheme has just been turned down on expense, but this road costs even more money. The scheme is ill thought out, it disregards the recommendations of the Royal Commission, it involves the maintenance in perpetuity of two arterial roads running parallel to each other through a residential area, it destroys open spaces, and, by passing through, involves still further danger to child life. On all these grounds I hope the House will reject the Bill.

8.18 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir MERVYN MANN IN GHAM-BULLER: I have listened closely to the arguments of both the Mover and the Seconder of the Amendment, and I have heard nothing which has caused me to change my view in the slightest degree that this Bill presents the most practical way of solving a very difficult problem; and I sincerely hope the House will give the Bill its Third Reading. The first point is that there is general agreement that it is necessary to do something. Those who oppose the Bill go as far as that, and I think they agree that the conditions of congestion, which are well known in the Hammersmith Broadway, Kensington High Street, and that part of London, are such that they should not be tolerated much longer, so I shall waste no time in arguing whether or not it is necessary to have something done, some scheme adopted, because that is agreed upon. The problem before the House, therefore, is whether the scheme outlined in the Bill is the best that can be framed and submitted to this House. I maintain, after very careful and full consideration, that it certainly is the best.
When I heard the arguments of the Mover of the Amendment in opposition to the Bill, I was rather puzzled by some of them. He appeared to me to be asking for a further 12 months' delay to consider the Bill and at the same time complaining that this is an old Bill which has been examined over a great number of years, and yet he suggested that the Bill had not received sufficient consideration. The mere fact that the Bill has been before the county councils and other


authorities for so long is a proof of the immense amount of consideration which has been given to it. Again the supporter and Seconder of the Amendment are themselves, on one or two matters, in complete disagreement with each other. The Mover of the Amendment laid it down as one of his first axioms that it was most necessary not to have a large number of shops and tradesmen on an arterial road. I agree absolutely with that statement, but the Seconder of the Amendment made it clear that he would have preferred not to have a new road but to widen, the Chiswick Road and make a great arterial road through the biggest shopping centre in that part of London.

Mr. ASTOR: I think my hon. and gallant Friend may not be familiar with the district. As regards Fulham, the part which I represent, there is this alternative of going over the railway, but that alternative is not available in the district represented by my hon. Friend who seconded the Amendment.

Sir M. MANNINGHAM-BULLER: I am satisfied to leave with the House the statement made by the Mover of the Amendment that it is most undesirable to build a new arterial road through a big shopping centre, because you would always have tradesmen's vans and other cars standing about on the road, which would greatly obstruct the traffic. I agree, and I only point out that when you go further west there are two schemes, one for widening the existing Chiswick Road and the other the scheme outlined in the Bill. The Seconder of the Amendment is only too anxious to oppose the scheme in the Bill which avoids the shopping centre and to build an arterial road through the most thickly populated shopping centre in that part of London. The bulk of the speech of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment was dealing with only about a third of the whole length of the proposed new road. He was really dealing with a scheme which looked rather inviting when first glanced at, namely, a new road over the top of the existing railway. This is not the place to argue that scheme, but I would say that a careful examination of it satisfied me at any rate that it is not a sound and practical scheme.
I agree with the Mover of the Amendment that the whole problem cannot be settled entirely on the question of cost, but cost, after all, is a material factor to be taken into account, and, other things being equal, surely the most economical scheme should be the one to be carried out. When you compare these two schemes, however, you find out that things are not equal and that the more expensive scheme means the demolition of just as many houses as, if not snore houses than, the cheaper scheme. Anybody listening to the statements put forward against the Bill would never have gathered that that was the case. The estimated colt of the low level scheme, that is, the one which will do the least possible damage to the houses adjoining the railway—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I think I must point out that on this Motion the Debate must be restricted as though we were on the Third Reading. I am advised that the scheme to which the hon. and gallant Member for Northampton (Sir M. Manningham-Buller) refers was outside the scope of the notices and therefore could not have been put into the Bill by the Committee on it. So far as the Committee stage is concerned, it is quite competent for them to consider the alternative schemes and to find the Preamble not proved, but we have now to consider the Bill as it is sent down to us, and we must not go into the details of alternative schemes.

Sir M. MANNINGHAM-BULLER: I apologise for straying rather far afield, and I will bow to your Ruling. I would like to say a few words about the damage that will be done to St. Paul's School playing field. The case of the opponents of the Bill has been rather spoiled by over-statement with regard to that damage. Naturally, there is every desire on the part of anybody connected with a great Measure of this sort to protect open spaces, and particularly the playing fields of an old-established school such as St. Paul's. The amount which was originally proposed to be taken off was something like one-sixteenth of an acre; that has since been reduced. and the only effect it will have on the football ground and the cricket field is that, whereas they had four cricket practice nets alongside the


road, there will be two, and two will have to be found elsewhere on the ground. It appears that there is ample room for them. The fact remains that the amount taken from the grounds is small, but it is with regret that it has been found necessary. It is impossible to plan a new arterial road out of London in any direction without affecting some property and interfering with some interests. The promoters regret the necessity for this but they had to choose the lesser of two evils. If this piece of land had not been taken from the playing fields of St. Paul's School, there would have been a bend in the road and they would have had to move a useful building opposite called the Froebel Institute at a cost of from £75,000 to £100,000.
I will now turn to a further portion of the road which was dealt with by the Seconder. I gather that although he is in favour of something being done to relieve the immense amount of traffic going out into the Great West Road, he does not wish to have a new road built but wishes to widen the existing road. He made very little reference to the immense value of the Bill in linking up the new arterial road which goes over the new Chertsey Road Bridge. That bridge was built only a few years ago. It is hardly used and is almost sterile. While 4,000 vehicles use this bridge in 24 hours, 35,000 cross Hammersmith and Putney Bridges. The reason the Chertsey Road Bridge is not used is mainly because it leads straight into Hammersmith Broadway, which is a place no reasonable motorist would use. Once you connect that bridge, as this Bill does, with the new road which will bring you to Cromwell Road without touching Hammersmith Broadway, there is little doubt that full use will be made of the bridge and the new arterial road, and it will make another valuable exit from London over the Thames, relieving the pressure on the Great West Road and over Hammersmith Bridge. If you do not link up with that road the expense incurred on it will be practically wasted.
The Seconder made a reference to the Royal Commission. That commission was on cross-river traffic, which is really a different problem from the one with which this Bill deals. The commission was not dealing with finding the best means of relieving the tremendous

amount of traffic going out from the West End. It dealt with the problem of cross-river traffic. At the time the commission recommended the building of two bridges, the new Chertsey Road Bridge was not in existence. Its erection has entirely altered the whole position, and it is doubtful whether the Royal Commission would have reported in favour of two new bridges over the Thames if that bridge had then been in existence. The examination of that commission was made for a different purpose and in different circumstances.
I will say a word about the damage done by the road going through a residential area of Chiswick. If you are to have a new arterial road going out to the west and linking up with the new Chertsey Bridge, and are to avoid taking the traffic through a dense shopping centre, you must have a new road somewhere north of the river to link up where the Great West Road comes in. Therefore, you must go through Chiswick somewhere. It is a curious thing that in another scheme which was put forward the portion of the road which goes through Chiswick was identical with the road in this scheme. It rather looks as if the line of the road selected by this Bill is the best line that can be found. It is true that it goes through a small portion of some playing fields, of which complaint was made—

Mr. MITCHELL: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that cutting through playing fields is going through a small portion?

Sir M. MANNINGHAM-BULLER: The size of these playing fields is 10 acres. The road will cut off three acres from the rest of the ground. These three acres are already cut off from the playing ground and are used as tennis courts, so that they will not be cut off to any greater extent than they are now. Only a short time ago Chiswick Park, which is a fine open space, was purchased and presented to the public; it is a quarter of a mile from these playing fields through which this road will run. In view of the fact that it will take only little more than an acre—regrettable though the necessity is—and that within a short distance there are the fine new grounds lately opened at Chiswick Park, I do not think it can be said, having regard to the difficulties attendant on


the making of any arterial road, that we are imposing any avoidable hardship on people interested in playing fields.
We have been told, also, that the scheme will destroy the amenities of the district and involve the destruction of some fine old houses bordering Chiswick Mall. The projected road will pass 100 to 150 yards at the back of those houses, and as it is almost impossible to drive any new road through any part of the town without treading on somebody's toes I think the case of the opponents has in that respect been rather spoiled by over-statement. We were told about the houses which will be completely ruined, and it was said that the whole area would never be used for residential purposes again. I suppose that the distance from St. James's Square to Piccadilly is about the same as the distance of that residential area from the new road, and would anybody really argue that the houses in St. James's Square are completely ruined and uninhabitable because of the traffic in Piccadilly?
In conclusion, I would say, first of all, that I think everybody is agreed that something must be done to provide a new exit in this direction. We have been asked to delay this proposal for 12 months. I believe that the erection of a certain number of new buildings is being delayed awaiting the fate of this Bill. If this Bill is thrown out those buildings will be put up, but sooner or later a road will have to be built, and the only effect of the delay will be that a great deal more will have to be paid by way of compensation, making the scheme more costly than it is at the present time. Opponents of the Bill have pointed out that the scheme has been under consideration for many years. Surely that is an argument why something should now be done without further delay. If, as I hope, the Bill is passed and the road is constructed, it will undoubtedly take away a great deal of through traffic from the Chiswick High Road by providing a good straight exit from the Cromwell Road to the Great West Road. It will also enable more traffic to make use of Chiswick Bridge, and in that way relieve the pressure on the bridges at Hammersmith and Putney, which would be a most desirable thing. The present scheme is a thoroughly sound way of tackling an exceedingly difficult problem, it has been given the

closest consideration for many years and has withstood the fire of cross-examination and criticism exceedingly well, and I hope the House will agree to it.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. R. C. MORRISON: The House has a difficult task in one respect, and that is that it is quite impossible for the Members, 95 per cent. of whom have had no chance of studying this problem, have no map and do not know the location of the places which have been mentioned, to come to any decision as to the merits or demerits of the scheme in the short time which we can give to this Debate. Fortunately the question has been dealt with by a Select Committee which sat for nine days to examine this Bill. They went into the merits of this proposal and also into the alternative schemes submitted, and they found in the end that the Preamble of this Bill was proved. I was rather surprised to hear the Mover and the Seconder of the Amendment making constant references to the London County Council. It seemed to me that, realising the weakness of their case, they hoped to get some support from their own side by putting forward the bogey that this scheme was the work of the London County Council. As a matter of fact, this is a joint Bill. I am not a member of the London County Council, but I was for several years a member of the Middlesex County Council. While it is quite true that London has a Labour County Council, it is equally true that Middlesex has a Conservative County Council—

Sir EDWARD CAMPBELL: With a Socialist chairman.

Mr. EDE: May I say that I have nothing at all to do with Middlesex?

Mr. MORRISON: —and therefore I feel that it is entirely wrong for anyone to introduce political motives. All I have to say about the matter is that I know that this scheme has been under discussion for a great number of years. It was discussed by the Middlesex County Council before the War. In 1925 the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee—[hope we shall have a word from the chairman to-night—in the first report they issued, recommended this scheme. As I have already said, a Select Committee of this House has discussed it and recommended it, and the Ministry of Transport, if I mistake not,


wholeheartedly approve of it and propose to contribute 60 per cent. towards the cost. Therefore, in my view, an overwhelming case has been made out in favour of this House letting the Bill go through without further ado.
I am astonished that in a scheme of this magnitude any hon. Member should raise a piffling question concerning a few yards being taken off the playing fields of St. Paul's School. In my constituency there is a school where the building and the playground for 800 children cover together no more than one acre, and I wish that some hon. Members who work themselves into a fever of passion over a few yards being taken off the playing fields of a school which already has room for four or five football pitches would show an equal amount of passion to improve the playgrounds of some of the schools in other localities. It shows a lamentable lack of proportion to import a small question like that into this discussion. I submit that the House is not in a position to examine at length the merits or demerits of alternative proposals, but we know that this Bill is supported by the London County Council, the Middlesex County Council, the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee and the Ministry of Transport, and in view of that support and the fact that the scheme has been under consideration for a great many years the House ought, without further delay, to allow the Bill to go through.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. BOSSOM: I am in a somewhat difficult position in this matter. For some years I was vice-chairman of the Improvements Committee of the London County Council, and had much to do with improvements of this sort, and I realise that, no matter what happens, we have to make improvements in London, even though we cannot get all that we want. A great improvement is being advocated here, and we know that it is necessary to relieve the pressure of traffic in that area of London, but at the same time there are circumstances connected with this Bill which to many of us are very undesirable. We must recognise that in the case of all great improvements many amenities must be sacrificed. It is a sad thing, but it is a fact, and in the circumstances we have to do our best to make the sacrifices as small as possible.

I feel that in this Bill a great many sacrifices have not been made as light as they might have been. Many of us feel that sufficient consideration has not been given to the effect of this scheme upon certain open spaces and certain churches. It has been said that this scheme is essential in order to remedy the Hammersmith situation, which is very serious. The engineer to the London County Council said, in testifying upstairs, that the limit of time was seven years for the entire scheme to be completed, but he did not say that this particular part would take seven years. This part is one of the most troublesome, and in view of what we have heard we are justified in assuming that the opposition to it will be very great. Every possible opposition will be raised, and the chance of getting this part of the road through Hammersmith, where the congestion is worst, without great opposition, is remote.
It is worth while calling the attention of the House to the fact that this is a scheme for the widening of an existing road, now being very much used in order to relieve the Hammersmith situation. When an attempt is made to widen a road, that road is neutralised for the time being. It is not the type of road upon which you get through traffic. This proposal will limit the use of one of the traffic arteries, through Hammersmith, while the new road is being constructed. This is a very unfortunate situation. An hon. Member said that good houses would not be pulled down, but when you are widening a road you are definitely taking down a lot of houses that are on one or the other side. You purchase the land on which the houses stand, which brings about a situation which all of us would like to see reduced to a minimum, namely, paying the landowners compensation for the land. We would rather that the same sum of money were spent in a way that would give relief to unemployment. I am sure every hon. Member will agree with that. The proposed road definitely requires the pulling down of many good houses.
I understand that we are on Consideration and Third Reading. I will try, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, with your permission, to state a few of the conditions that will exist if the proposed road were built. If we could put a road parallel with the existing road and over the railway tracks


which have been referred to, we should be well justified in giving this plan Consideration. We have all received this morning circulars from the promoters of the Bill, in which they say that it would cost £1,000,000 more to carry out the alternative scheme of the roadway over the railways. The promoters do not give any details of cost, nor were such details given upstairs. In the testimony that was given upstairs certain facts were brought out. It was suggested that the road over the tracks could not be built in the normal, modern, commonplace way due to existing Regulations. Those Regulations were introduced 50 odd years ago, when trains had side swinging doors, but that situation no longer exists. Many cities, such as New York, Philadelphia and Chicago, have been able to modernise their roads, and construct them in ways definitely beneficial to the community over their railway tracks. The engineer of the London County Council, when he was testifying upstairs upon oath, said that he would like to try this scheme of a road over railways, but that it was too costly. How can this great cost be justified? It was said that all the work would have to be done at night, but if the District Railway would only refer to its next door neighbour, the Southern Railway—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now going into the details of the alternative scheme, but that cannot be done at this stage of the Bill.

Mr. BOSSOM: I appreciate your point, Sir. I ask for information as to what we are entitled to say upon Consideration. I understand that we are on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman well knows that the rule of this House on Third Reading—this Motion is equivalent to Third Reading—is that we discuss only what is in the Bill. It is open to the hon. Member to suggest that the Bill should not be continued because there is an alternative, but he must not go into the details of the alternative, which is not involved in the Bill.

Mr. BOSSOM: Thank you, Sir, for your explanation, which leaves me in a most embarrassing position, as I understood I could explain certain details. The work that is being proposed omits many benefits that could be gained in

other ways. Some benefits may be preserved and the good houses will not be destroyed if the alternative be adopted. In respect to these house s, if purchased, we know, as the valuer to the London County Council testifies upstairs, that the land can often be sold at a profit. If you are widening a road on one side you cannot sell half a house at a profit. If the alteration were to be made with a road over the railway, as is suggested, there would be two roads at the finish, instead of one as at present proposed, and there would be oily one owner, the railway, with whom to negotiate. When negotiating with 100 people you cannot get along as quickly as with one.
The cost of the work in the proposed scheme will be taken up largely in compensation to landowners, but in the alternative the expenditure would consist largely of steel, bricks and cement, and 80 per cent. of this would go to all parts of the country in wages for workers. As the Government are providing 60 per cent. towards the cost of the road, it would be good for the remainder of the country to get benefit out of this large expenditure. I am particularly disturbed at this situation, and it is unfortunate that the favourable conditions which are available are not being enjoyed by all the country. In spite of that, there is a very great need for more facilities in that part of London and I am going to support the Bill.

8.54 p.m.

Sir HENRY JACKSON: I hope I may be allowed briefly to give the reasons why for some years this scheme has received the full support of the London and Home Counties fraffic Advisory Committee, of which I am chairman. May I be allowed to tell exactly who the Advisory Committee are? The committee are made up of representatives of all local authorities in this great area, the radius of which is 30 miles from Charing Cross, of the Central Government and of all the great operators, the railway managers and general managers and distinguished trade unionists. Few tribunals, therefore, could approach problem; of this kind with such catholicity and. completeness. By two Acts of Parliament we have been given statutory powers to review the traffic problems in this great area, and


it may be of interest to the House to know that in our London traffic area there are now living 12,000,000 people—one-quarter of the population of the British Isles. Therefore, I would venture to say that, if we put before the House a considered opinion with regard to the scheme, it at least deserves some sympathetic consideration.
When the committee came into existence in 1925, there were many problems that we had to face with regard to the traffic needs of the London area, but of those needs and problems there were few so anxious as the question of the congestion in Hammersmith Broadway and King Street, Hammersmith, and quite early we decided that to that problem we must give our almost immediate attention. As the House probably knows, a great arterial road, the Great West Road, had been built by the Middlesex County Council, having been begun in 1919 and completed in 1925, and we were definitely of opinion that a great new road starting from Cromwell Road should be made in order to link up with this new great arterial road, the Great West Road. The scheme that we elaborated, in conjunction with the officials of the Ministry, is, for all practical purposes, the scheme that is before the House to-night, and from that day to this we have consistently advised successive Ministers of Transport that this was a scheme which we strongly advocated.
You have quite rightly decided, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that we must not discuss alternative schemes on this occasion, but I think I may be permitted to say that, had that been possible, I could have given a complete explanation why we have never accepted the proposals put before the Royal Commission in 1926 by the Western Exits Society. We have consistently and repeatedly in our annual reports recommended this present scheme. In 1929 and 1930 we reaffirmed our preference to the then Minister of Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison). We have emphasised it to the two immediate predecessors of the present Minister, and, as he knows, also to him. The problem, therefore, has been before an expert committee, who have had a wealth of engineering advice during this long period of time. It is getting worse and worse, and, the

longer it is put off, the graver the traffic problems in this area will become. I am reluctant to quote a large number of figures, but perhaps the House will allow me to give one or two. Taking the Kensington Road, from the junction of Holland Road to the junction of Warwick Gardens, the number of vehicles passing within a period of 12 hours is now 41,174. In Hammersmith Broadway, in 1912, the number of vehicles passing during the corresponding period of 12 hours was 12,974. In 1925, the number had risen to 28,774, while in 1935 it was 37,683, so that in 10 years the number of vehicles passing through Hammersmith Broadway has increased by no less than 31 per cent. In High Road, Chiswick, to which reference has already been made, at its junction with the Great West Road, no fewer than 30,000 vehicles pass in that particular 12 hours.
On the fringes of Middlesex remarkable industrial developments are taking place, which impose upon whoever is responsible for advising the Minister, and, in the end, on the Minister himself, tremendous burdens, because of the obligation to provide proper traffic facilities for people on those fringes to come to the centre. We have heard to-night from the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. H. Mitchell), on behalf of his council, the suggestion, that we should widen the Chiswick High Road and abandon the idea of making this alternative by-pass road. I am sure my hon. Friend must know, however, that at this moment the Chiswick High Road is a very busy shopping centre, and attracts a large amount of pedestrian traffic. It is one of the four black spots which the Traffic Advisory Committee have recently had to bring to the notice of the Minister in regard to dealing with the menacing question of accidents, to which he has devoted so much skill and energy. We have already made certain minor alterations and improvements to the carriageways, but, however much the road is improved, the needs of the locality continue to increase, and the small advantage that we gain by these trifling minor improvements cannot be put forward as a reason for not proceeding with a larger scheme.
It seems to me that the real opposition to the Bill comes from those who consider


that, instead of making this new by-pass, we should improve the condition of the road through Chiswick. But the whole point of this new road, linking up with the Great West Road and the Chertsey by-pass and connecting them with Central London, is that we have found by experience that it is always unwise to project a great arterial road, upon which a large amount of through traffic must necessarily go, by widening a road in a very densely used industrial and urban area. If that is done, it increases the difficulties by precipitating a vast through traffic into the area, and the last condition is worse than the first. I would say to my hon. Friends who are asking us to advise the Minister to widen the High Road, that we are firmly of opinion that the conditions in Chiswick High Road, and also, of course, in King Street, Hammersmith and Hammersmith itself, would thereby be made worse. We venture to say to them that the real solution is an alternative road which will take away a great deal of through traffic that would become a burden upon the community in Chiswick High Road itself, and, with the great development of vehicular traffic which is indicated by the figures I have quoted, it is clear that in time both of these roads will be needed.
When the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick asks us to consider widening the High Road, I would ask him, and through him his local authority, to recognise that in our opinion the real solution, and the only solution, is that which is placed before the House to-night. I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Mr. Alan Herbert) that we can do something for pedestrians by way of traffic lights and roundabouts, but I would in all fairness say to my hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor) that London has not been retrograde in these matters; indeed, we have been very much in the foreground with experiments in regard to traffic in this great area. But that is a small thing compared with this great new highway which will link up the centre of London with the great arterial road leading to the West. Because we believe that this is one of several great, fundamental road problems in London which it will be necessary to face sooner or later if the ever-increasing problems of London

traffio difficulties are to be met, and because we have consistently approved of the scheme which is before the House to-night, I hope that 1 he House will by a majority reject the Amendment.

Sir E. CAMPBELL: Is there any chance of amending the scheme so as to retain the present playing fields?

Sir H. JACKSON: That question should be addressed to the Chairman of the Committee, which, I am sure, has considered all these details, and has given the greatest care to the protection of amenities.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. MESSER: This scheme has been before the Middlesex County Council, of which I have been a member since 1925, for a very long time. It must not be assumed that it is merely a London problem. Middlesex in this instance is as important as London. When that great engineering feat, the Great West Road, was made, it was known that, unless there was a process by which it could be continued into London without causing any sort of bottleneck, it would be creating difficulties rather than easing the difficulties of transport. The question of open spaces is one that agitates the minds of many of us. Chiswick has more open spaces per acre than any other part of Middlesex. The Middlesex County Council has never refused to make a grant of 25 per cent. towards any open space that Chiswick has wanted to purchase. There is an enormous area of open space known as Gunnersbury Park which Chiswick itself was not prepared to assist in purchasing, but which was purchased despite the reactionary policy of Chiswick in that instance. Chiswick is not losing any public amenities by this scheme. If there is anyone who is in doubt as to that aspect of it, I hope I have been able to clear that up. The geographical situation, perhaps, will not easily be understood by those who do not quite understand the relationship of Middlesex with London. To get into London from the west or the north you have to go through Middlesex.
What we have beer realising recently is that London has been made easily accessible but, when the traffic has got into London, the gateway has been closed, and it is impossible to foresee what is going to happen if we accept the


suggestions that have been made, and are to go on waiting. Almost all authorities who are troubled by this question realise that, if the matter is delayed, the situation gets worse and not better. It is not going to improve by waiting. Consideration will not produce a better scheme for, if that consideration is tending in the direction of building a main road that does not go through a residential area, you will not be able to build one that does not. [Interruption.]Building over the railway only dodges part of it. It does not clear the residential space that you have to go through. You cannot help going through a residential part. If you are to wait for a road leading out of London through some area which is not residential, you will have to wait for an exodus of the population. It is a frank impossibility.

Mr. SIMMONDS: Is the hon. Member aware that complete schemes have been worked out by competent engineers whereby roads would be taken from the very heart of London and run right out to the suburbs?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think the hon. Member was here when I pointed out previously that consideration of the Bill must not deal with alternative schemes.

Mr. MESSER: This scheme provides for an exit from London. There is no scheme that can provide for an exit from London which does not go through a residential area. There are schemes which purport to be able to do it but they must go through some part of a residential area. Anyone who knows London and the method by which you are going to get out of London on the West knows that there is not any area of open space. You have to go through a residential area before you can join up with the Great West Road. If it is to he accepted that it is not necessary to continue that process of the Great West Road, one can understand the opposition, but the traffic problem in that part of Middlesex is such that I hope the House will waste no more time and will let Middlesex and London get an improvement that is required both in the interests of the life of the people and the convenience of transport.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. H. STRAUSS: I realise that it may be unusual to oppose a Bill that has

been considered by a committee on private legislation for the first time on the Third Reading but, if the Third Reading is not to be a mere formality, I cannot conceive any Bill on which it could possibly be more proper that the opinion of the House should be taken on the merits. It is true that by the rules of the House there are many interests that can petition against a Bill and be heard by the committee, but there are many interests vitally concerned with the preservation of amenities which have no right of audience before the committee and I, therefore, do not criticise the committee in any way for not having given consideration to matters which were not and could not be fully put before them. The matter raised in the Bill is one that concerns all England, and I hope the Division to-night will not be on party lines, because I know that there are hon. Members opposite who are also vitally interested in the preservation of amenities. I think the short issue that is raised by the Bill is whether traffic considerations are so overwhelmingly more important than everything else that the destruction of amenities and beauty must not be considered at all in comparison. I say that deliberately.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: When the hon. Gentleman refers to traffic does he also include safety on the roads, or is he only referring to traffic in the sense of moving vehicles?

Mr. STRAUSS: I am willing to consider all relevant matters, but the case against this Bill on the ground of safety is more overwhelming than on most other grounds, with the one exception of amenities, with which I propose particularly to deal. I do not think that I need apologise for dealing with that question because it has scarcely been mentioned at all. In the literature which has been sent to us by one side or the other on this Bill there have been various estimates of the cost of various schemes, and it has been pointed out that this scheme is the cheapest, but in considering the cost no value at all is placed on the loss of amenities. The cost simply means out-of-pocket expenses. Though you destroy one of the loveliest things in England, it does not happen to be reckoned in the cost, but this House is entitled to reckon it in the cost, and it is the duty of the House to do so.
In case there are hon. or right hon. Gentlemen opposite who do not know the district concerned, let me tell them that Chiswick Mall is perhaps the most graciously lovely row of houses in England. I shall deal with the statement that it does not destroy Chiswick immediately. I know it does not directly, but indirectly, as I hope to establish it will. I do not believe that there is any Member of this House who, if he studies the question, believes that, if the Bill is passed, Chiswick Mall, as we know it, with its gardens behind, will long remain what it is to-day. It will obviously be quickly doomed. In London this district is unique. It has been rightly stated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) that Chiswick has more open spaces than almost any other district. I agree with him. That is part of its charm, but is that not an argument why we should try to spread the standard set by Chiswick in other districts rather than destroy what we already have in Chiswick, which is one of the best and most beautiful things.

Mr. MESSER: Will any of these open spaces be destroyed by this road?

Mr. STRAUSS: I promise the hon. Member and other hon. Members who seem tempted to interrupt me before I have developed my argument, that I am really not going to shirk it. The only unspoilt stretch of London's river is Chiswick. There you have the unspoiled foreshore, then the green in front of the houses and then this beautiful row of houses of perfect architecture, and Church Lane and other equally beautiful parts near. By this road which you are proposing in this Bill, which can more accurately be described as the Chiswick and Hammersmith Devastation Bill, this lovely part of Chiswick will be cut off from its hinterland, and the road will no doubt shortly become a replica of the Kingston by-pass. If any hon. or right hon. Gentleman on either side of the House thinks that that disaster to one of the gems of this country is a thing that does not matter, I do not envy him his imagination or his knowledge of the people, rich and poor, workers and artisans, who reside in this district.
It is one of the districts of London which still preserves something of a village or community life. I know it from

the river. I know it from some of its charming inns. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear !"] I am not ashamed of it, and if some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen knew more of these charming places they would know more of the opinion of the working classes of the country. What does this road do? I leave out the disputes question of what it does at St. Paul's School, which does not concern me nearly so much as what it does later. When it gets into Hammersmith and Chiswick one of the first things it does it to cut off the garden of William Morris's house. Is that received with great enthusiasm by those who consider themselves his followers?

Mr. MESSER: You would have cut off his head.

Mr. STRAUSS: I appreciate the hon. Member's joke, and he is welcome to it, but he may be surprised to hear that I am, and always have been, a very great admirer of William Morris, and I should not be surprised if I knew as much about his work as half the Opposition.

Mr. KELLY: What are you doing over there?

Mr. STRAUSS: What I am doing here, as I shall show the hon. Member, is to carry out one of the great traditions of the Conservative party by trying to preserve that which is of value. After it has cut off William Morris's garden, it then goes through the Latymer Road playground, and the churchyard of St. Peter's, and the next thing it does is to skirt St. Peter's Square and to ruin that example of perfect Regency town-planning. I know that the right hon. Gentleman who leads the majority party in the London County Council has recently decided to town plan the whole of London, and I have no doubt that in all quarters of the House there are those who realise the value of town-planning. It is rather an unfortunate inauguration of the better era that at one of the most perfect bits of town-planning handed down from the past, should be handed over for destruction.
I am aware, in case any one wishes to make a verbal point of this, that the particular area I am now dealing with is in Middlesex, but, after all, we are considering the scheme as a whole. If the scheme is bad in any vital part we ought


to throw out the Bill on the Third Reading to-night. Then the road goes behind this beautiful row of houses to which I have referred, and their gardens will soon, no doubt, be built upon, and the district will be ruined. Then it bisects a recreation ground. It injures two churchyards, two recreation grounds, school grounds, and cuts several rows of houses across at right-angles. An hon. Member who has spoken on this side of the House in favour of this Measure referred, in what must have been a humorous passage, to this road as a bypass. What does it by-pass? It does not succeed in missing any amenity. Supposing you were worried about the congestion in the Strand and decided that you would relieve it by a road which involved the destruction of Somerset House and bisecting the Temple Gardens, would you call that a by-pass?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Would that mean that you would not have to pay Income Tax?

Mr. STRAUSS: This district which by this Bill you are going to devastate does not consist mainly of show houses which might be preserved, like Walpole House and Strawberry House. It consists of a living community, a very happy community on the whole, enjoying more amenities than most people in London—open spaces, beautiful achitecture, the sight of the river. It is rightly said that the problem of traffic is getting worse and worse. There is another problem which is getting worse and worse—the difficulty of finding in London a place where a thinking man who wishes to use his brain can live in serenity and quiet. [HON. MEMBERS: "The House of Lords!"] Here you have a district suitable for thinkers, poets, architects and those who can enrich our life, and even our politics. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, no doubt, believe that the exercise of concentrated thought will reinforce their numbers. We have a similar belief possibly on our benches, and I think that we may all agree that amenities, serenity and quiet are of advantage to constructive thought, and I believe that in all parts of the House there may be some who will be willing to carry to the Division Lobby a sign of their conviction that there are values worth preserving as much as fast motor traffic. In this district there are

2,000 working people who will be displaced. At present they enjoy the amenities which I have described, and their children can go out untended without risk of slaughter in the streets. This threatened destruction of amenities is known to every man who visits the district and loves it, as those who live in it do. I do not live in it and I have not a personal interest, but I have got an interest, which everyone of us has a right to have, in one of the lovely things of England.
If there is any Member who believes that there is no alternative to this scheme he will believe anything. That was certainly not the view of the Royal Commission on cross-river traffic. I agree that that commission was primarily a commission on cross-river traffic, but in the case which we all received from the promoters of the Bill to-day they were at considerable pains to try to minimise the importance of what the Royal Commission said. Abiding by your Ruling I will not go into that scheme. I ask the House to consider that there is an alternative to a scheme which causes such destruction. It is not even alleged in any of the literature put before us that there is no alternative. It is only said that there is no equally cheap alternative. In estimating the cost no value is given for the amenities which you destroy in the process of making this road. I agree most heartily with what one of the hon. Members opposite, in supporting the Bill, said about this not being a question of party politics, and he pointed out how wholly unfair it would be to claim support for the opposition to this Bill on the ground that it was backed by a Socialist majority. I would not dream of such a thing. I agree that it is backed equally by the Middlesex County Council, which has, I believe, a Conservative majority. In their willingness to destroy things of beauty I do not find much distinction between Conservative, Liberal and Socialist local bodies.
Although it is not a question of party politics, it is a question in which deep political convictions may be involved. I am a Conservative. I believe it to be the tradition, the glory and the purpose of the Conservative party to maintain and preserve those things which are of value, and dignity, serenity, beauty, good architecture, worthy surroundings are things of value which as a Tory I would preserve. Toryism, as I understand it, was an old


creed when Karl Marx was born, and it will still be young when he is forgotten, because it has permanent truth in it and is enshrined in the hearts of the people. Hon. Members may have representations from various traffic interests. Let them go into the districts threatened with devastation and let them see what the working men think about the destruction.
I have given some arguments which I think may appeal to a Tory mind. I will give one which might have some appeal to a Socialist. I can respect the Socialist creed even when I disagree with it in that it recognises that at times there are values greater than money. I believe that we have such a case to-night. Great care has been taken not to threaten any great shopping centre or interest. The traders could no doubt organise and protest; the people for whom I am speaking cannot organise as easily. They are people who love their homes, the safety of their streets and the character of their district, threatened with devastation. I am told that the Ministry of Transport favours this scheme. I hope that the Minister will not think me disrespectful when I say that when I am told that it is an argument against me that the Ministry of Transport favours this scheme I am reminded of the story of a famous member of my own profession who opened an appeal in the Court of Appeal in these words: "This is an appeal from Mr. Justice—There are, however, other grounds for the appeal" If this scheme goes through I have no doubt the Ministry of Transport will allow it to be botched as the Kingston by-pass and other schemes have been botched. I have the utmost respect for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. I know that he loves amenities. However well the Ministry may have served the public in matters of transport, it has served it very badly in regard to amenities. When we remember the country through which the Kingston bypass goes and what might have been made of it, what a dozen countries of Europe would have made of the scheme, and we see the barbaric atrocity that the Kingston by-pass now is, we realise that the Ministry of Transport is not an infallible guide in these matters. I am well aware that that was not mainly the business of the Ministry of Transport. They may say: "We got the road, but

someone else ought to have stopped ribbon development." It is, however, an unfortunate fact that while most of us have been pointing out what ought to have been done in regard to the Kingston by-pass—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member come back to the Bill?

Mr. STRAUSS: I apologise. I realise that there are many forces raised against those who take the view that I am endeavouring to put forward. There are those who think that everything that has to do with traffic must necessarily be progressive. There are those who think that by destroying amenities you are showing yourselves to be rather up-to date. There are Close who think that congestion is rather more important than the question of the destruction of those few remaining places where civilised life can be lived. I will make a prophesy. I do not know how the vote which will be taken at the conclusion of this discussion will go, nor do I know in the event of the Bill receiving a Third Reading how it will fare in another place; but of one thing I am certain, and that is that if the Bill passes Parliament, within a few years that gracious oasis of peace, that lovely thing which the best district of Chiswick now constitutes will be only a memory, and we shall have the sort of district that exists all over the place, and England and London will have lost something unique. In case hon. Members may think that I am taking an exceptional view of this district, I would remind the House that it is starred in Baedeker. If the Bill does not pass, I firmly believe that n a few years Members of all parties, looking back on the record of what was done to-night will be astonished that there was ever a generation so barbarous as to have introduced this Bill. I commend the rejection to the House.

9.38 p.m.

Sir JOHN GANZONI: As one who had the honour of being Chairman of the Select Committee on Private Bills which had this Bill before it in the Committee stage, I should like to be permitted to give what help I can to my colleagues who were not on the Committee and were not in the Committee Room during the prolonged hearing. The Bill was before us for eight days. There were originally 20 petitions against it, of which five were


proceeded with and represented by counsel. The whole Bill was most carefully examined not only in regard to the contested Clauses, but on the ninth day we spent our time going through the other Clauses, as the watchdog of the public. I feel a slight delicacy about my position to-night, because although I have been Chairman of these committees for 13 years, this is the first occasion on which I have been in the position of having to say anything on a contested Third Reading in this House. It happens in this way, that I have always been careful not to give a vote on the Second Reading of any Bill which I had any reason to think might come into my list. This Bill did not have a contested Second Reading, and it is the first Bill in my 13 years experience that has had a contested Third Reading on the Floor of the House. I should not have mentioned that matter except for the little story that was told by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss) when he said that a member of his profession had stated that a certain case was an appeal from Mr. Justice Blank, but that there were also other reasons why the verdict should be reversed.

Mr. H. STRAUSS: The hon. Member will appreciate that I was not alluding to the Committee.

Sir J. GANZONI: The arts of advocacy are not to be denied. I desire to help hon. Members who are called upon to contribute towards a definite decision one way or another on this Bill. I am aware that on the Floor of the House we cannot deal in detail with any of the alternative schemes. We had three alternatives before us in Committee, but we could not have approved or authorised them. The most that we could have done, as Mr. Deputy-Speaker has pointed out, would have been to have rejected the Bill because we felt that after examination one or other of the alternatives would have been preferable. I should like, with the permission of the Chair, to deal with the three alternatives that were before us. The first was to construct the road about one-fifth of its total length, at the London end, over the District Railway and the tube railway, instead of passing along Talgarth Road and Fenelon Road. We turned that scheme down because of the very much greater expense which we were told would be involved by the engineer

and surveyor of the London County Council and that distinguished public servant, Sir Henry May-bury, whose evidence was not shaken before us in cross-examination.
Another suggestion was that the road should proceed, as the Bill proceeds, as far as the Broadway at Hammersmith and then should run into King Street Hammersmith, through the narrow neck of the bottle in Hammersmith and at the London side where the vast volume of traffic comes down Goldhawk Road from the north-west, and then run on to the western boundary of the broadened High Road of Chiswick. We turned that scheme down because we were told that the expense would be vastly greater and that a great number of premises would have to be taken down. Moreover, we were told that if that expenditure were incurred London and the people who wished to come into London from the country would have only one broad road instead of two separate main arteries running in. Another alternative was what is known as the two bridges scheme, which would have had the advantage of providing two additional bridges over the river, but the roadway between would have had to be carried on a viaduct, and we were informed that the cost would have been at least £1,000,000 more than the scheme proposed in the Bill. Moreover, the road would have passed so far south that it was very doubtful whether traffic coming into London would use it, and that therefore it would have continued to contribute to the congestion of Hammersmith Broadway and High Street, Kensington.
As regards the playing field area of nine and three-quarters acres, one-eighth of an, acre was to be taken under the Bill as drafted, but the committee reduced that and, as I think has been said already, in order to avoid touching that area at all, it would have been necessary to swing the road out, creating an unnecessary curve there. It would also have been necessary to take down modern buildings at an expense of either £100,000 or £70,000 according to different estimates. Further, about three acres of the Home Field Recreation Ground of about 10 acres was to have been severed, although that portion would still remain fit for use as a playing field. It is severed at present because there are tennis courts which are entirely fenced off or netted


off and although contiguous it is not common with the rest of the recreation ground. The amount actually taken away by the road is one acre. It would have been possible by pulling down the whole of one side of a road adjoining to restore that amount of open space but the cost would have been £52,000.
When the idea of touching the recreation ground was first mooted and objected to a few years ago, the beautiful property known as Chiswick House Park of 68 acres, less than, a quarter of a mile away, was still in private possession. It had not been bought and dedicated to the public. Therefore it would appear that the necessity for that one acre which is being taken from the Home Field Recreation Ground is not now so vital. We have it from the chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of the Middlesex County Council that they aim at having 10 per cent. of open spaces. Chiswick already enjoys 14 per cent. and if you add in ground like the Chiswick lawn tennis ground and the cricket ground and other open spaces which are in private ownership, it has 22 per cent. Chiswick in this respect, far from being at a disadvantage is favourably situated in comparison with similar areas.
I think that meets most of the criticisms which have been advanced on particular points. We had the advantage in the Committee of wonderful wall maps or cartoons showing the details of the scheme and also photographs of all the streets in the district and the various types of property affected. The Members of the Committee went along the whole of the proposed route everyone of them once and several of them twice. In addition, we spent a day in going through the details of the route with the deposited plans and with the assistance of the valuers, and deciding as far as lay in our power whether it would be possible to achieve the object of the Bill without acquiring so much property. I am very much impressed of course by the speech of the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss). His transparent sincerity was refreshing and his speech would be an ornament to any debate. But I hope I will be forgiven for saying that Chiswick Mall, beautiful and historic as it is, is even now, without this road, more or less moribund. Those beautiful houses which have been described are not

the only properties there. There is an oil wharf near and a factory on the southern side and there are some shops at the end of it. I make bold to say that even without this scheme, Chiswick Mall would not be recognisable in 50, or perhaps in 20 years time.
We were called upon to decide which was the most practical scheme. As all Members of Private Bill Committees are bound to do, we signed a declaration that neither we nor our constituents had any interest in the subject-matter of the Bill. We gave the matter the, most careful consideration and we derided unanimously in favour of this scheme. I am grateful for the invaluable help given by my colleague who sits on the opposite side of the House as well as by my two colleagues who sit on this side of the House, and I trust that Members who, through no fault of their own, cannot-possibly have the knowledge of the subject which was imparted to us during those nine days' sittings, will not think it necessary now, on Third Reading, to reverse the Committee's decision.

9.51 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): It is my duty to give the House what guidance I can from the Ministry of Transport, and as we have had so many excellent and well-informed speeches, particularly from my hon. Friends the N ember for Ipswich (Sir J. Ganzoni) and the Member for Northampton (Sir M. Manningham-Buller) both of whom were on the Committee, I hope to be able to make my remarks very short. It is only fair to say, straight out, that we at the Ministry of Transport would consider it something of a disaster if this Bill were rejected to-night. Every day the congestion on our roads in London becomes worse, and I believe that the conditions will become chaotic unless drastic action is taken and taken soon. We at the Ministry are often asked the question, and I expect that other individual members are also asked it: "What are you going to do about the traffic problem in London?" "I would reply, with regard to the congestion in the west, that the scheme now before us is the way in which we hope to get over those appalling conditions. If the House permits this scheme to go through I believe we shall be able to


alleviate a great deal of the congestion which at present exists.
I would remind the House again-that the Bill has received a Second Reading, has had careful consideration from the Select Committee where the different points were threshed out very thoroughly by counsel and where witnesses were heard and alternative schemes examined; and further, that under our Parliamentary procedure this Bill, if it receives a Third Reading, will go to another place, there to pass through Second Reading, Committee and Third Reading stages. The Bill has the support of the London County Council—and of all shades of opinion on that body—of the Middlesex County Council, of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee and of the Ministry of Transport, who have tried as best they can to settle the best route for this important project. It is vital to link up as soon as possible the Cromwell Road on the east with the Chertsey by-pass and the Great West Road on the west, and it was with that object that those two great roads in Middlesex were made.
I do not think there is any necessity for me to deal with the objections in detail. As hon. Members have heard, the two big alternatives in favour of which we are asked to reject the Bill would each cost something like £1,000,000 more, and they were not considered to be as good as the scheme now before the House. I would also remind hon. Members who may have been attracted by what is known as the railway scheme that it does not deal with the whole 3¾miles of road projected in the Bill, but with rather less than one mile of it. If there was a railway running the whole distance no doubt the suggestion to put a road over it would have been much more attractive than it has been found, but the scheme has not been found practical either by the engineers of the London County Council or by the engineers of the Department or by the Select Committee which very carefully considered the problem.
One word about amenities. The hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. H. G. Strauss) gibed at us for having botched the Kingston by-pass. That was the first arterial road made in this country since the War, but since that time we have learned a lot. I quite agree that the Kingston by-pass is by no means perfect,

but we are doing our best to preserve the amenities of the countryside. Only last summer a very important Bill called the Restriction of Ribbon Development Bill was brought in and passed, and is now working satisfactorily. Chiswick Mall, about which my hon. Friend waxed so eloquent, is 100 yards from the point where the road as proposed will go. I do not think I need dwell on the question of St. Paul's School. The Chiswick High Road scheme was referred to by the Seconder of the Motion for the rejection. The trouble there was that the scheme as propounded by him was not as good a line as that which we propose; it would also have meant a greater cost and entailed double the destruction of property. Also it did not link up with the Chertsey by-pass. That scheme was turned down by the Select Committee. I do not think I need dwell any further on the alternative scheme.
I ask the House most earnestly to realise that if the problem of traffic congestion in London is to be faced big schemes of this nature are absolutely inevitable, and big schemes must involve the destruction of a certain amount of property. This problem must be tackled at once, and I hope hon. Members will not be afraid to tackle it because of its size. I hope they will give us support in dealing with these great schemes. No question of principle is involved in the Bill, and I hope, therefore, that the House will see its way to adopt the usual procedure in the case of a Bill which has gone through a searching examination by the Select Committee, give a Third Reading to the Bill so that it can go to another place and pass through its further stages with as little delay as possible.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. ALAN HERBERT: I am bound to say that I am very surprised but also very gratified to find that on a difficult and local matter like this there are so many hon. Members who will take the trouble to listen to the complicated arguments about a locality which many of them do not know. But when the hon. Member pleaded quite rightly for sympathetic consideration for the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee I could not help thinking that perhaps a little sympathetic consideration might also be granted to those who are opposing the Bill.


This House is the place where we are supposed to fight for the interests of our constituents: and we are here representing the inhabitants of the boroughs which will be affected by the Bill. I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, with whose difficulties I sympathise, did not repeat the remark which he is reported to have made on Saturday, that the objections raised by opponents of the scheme were parochial.
It is very easy to make a remark of that kind. I believe the Italians are reported to have complained that the Abyssinians adopted a parochial attitude to the activities of Signor Mussolini. In this case it really is not fair. I would ask hon. Members to consider that this is not the ordinary case of a by-pass round a village or town and of a few selfish local people resisting the proposal. It is not even the case of a by-pass which is bringing 50–50 benefits to those who live in the towns and to those who pass by. This is the most gigantic and unprecedented programme of destruction that has ever been put forward in the whole history of our roads and towns. This new road is like a great swathe made by a steam-roller going through a field of corn. It is to go through residential suburbs where there are rich and poor houses, and if we produce reasoned arguments against it we are not parochial. After all, are not hon. Members who are supporting the Bill also parochial? I am not thinking only of the beautiful properties in Chiswick Mall, but of the many houses of poor people in the poor streets, 30 or 40 rows of houses, streets in which there is now quietness and safety and where the dogs and children can run about. This great road is going to cut right through these streets at right angles, and where there is now no danger and no noise there will be much danger and much noise.
I ask hon. Members not to think that we are parochial. Why do we use the epithet "parochial"? Does it not mean that those who are opposing the Bill are selfish? May it not be that the boot is on the other leg? Many hon. Members have said: "I shall vote for this Bill because I shall be able to get out of London more quickly" Is not that parochial, that is, selfish? It is a question of one man's convenience

against another's; and I do not think we should fling epithets about like that. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Sir J. Ganzoni) and the other Members of the Select committee deserve a tribute for the great courtesy and care with which they have done their somewhat thankless task. I hope none of them will think we are casting any reflection whatever on them by taking this course. But, after all, what s the. good of having all these forms of procedure by which to fight every Bill to the last stage if we do not take advantage of them when we can? And now for the merits of the Bill. May I draw the attention of hon. Members to the Preamble of the Bill, which says:
Whereas the traffic facilities between the counties of London and Middlesex are inadequate and inconvenient and it is expedient that for the improvement thereof the London County Council and the Middlesex County Council should be authorised to construct new streets execute street widenings and make improvements of streets…
There seems to me to be a strange discrepancy between the Preamble of the Bill and the body of it. The Preamble does not say "Whereas it is expedient to cut through churchyards, recreation-grounds, school-grounds, and so on, and send 2,000 people of the working class away without care where they are to live" But that is what it does. What is still more serious, it does not do what it sets out to do.
What is it that makes traffic facilities between London and Middlesex inadequate and inconvenient? First, there is this Cromwell road hanging like a naked stump in the air and we all agree it ought to be extended. What are the other things which make for inconvenience? They are the Broadway and the bottle-neck on the west of that Broadway. The astonishing thing about this Bill is that although it is claimed in the Preamble that the Bill will improve the facilities, it does nothing about the bottle-neck and the Broadway. There will still be this bottle-neck and the insufficient Broadway, and there will still be congestion. It is of no use anybody telling me that with the construction of this new road Hammersmith Broadway is going to be a rustic retreat, with larks singing in the Broadway and haycarts down King Street. There will be very nearly as much traffic as there is now. Nobody has suggested that the London Passenger Transport Board is not going


to run its omnibuses along King Street and through the Broadway. People will still come from Olympia and Kensington High Street way. The traffic is increasing, and in two or three years' time there will be just as much traffic, and then there will be a demand for the removal of this bottle-neck and an improvement of the Broadway. It is that which ought to be done now as an integral part of the scheme. We are told by hon. Members that the objection to widening King Street is that it is a shopping centre, but is there an artery in London which is not a shopping centre? Piccadilly, the Strand and Oxford Street are shopping centres. It is a contradiction in terms to talk about "bypassing" the Broadway. If you have a traffic circus or filter which is not doing its work, let it be improved. If you have an artery which is stopped at one end by a bottle-neck, let the bottle-neck be removed.
What is the second cause which makes the connections between London and Middlesex inadequate and inconvenient? It is the fact that the traffic which passes through the Broadway is not all east and west, but much of it is north and south, crossing the river. That traffic is confined to one inadequate bridge, Hammersmith Bridge, which was condemned in 1926 by the Royal Commission. There is no bridge east of that, except Putney Bridge, which is one-and-a half miles distant. There will still be this north and south traffic coming across the bridge and the position will be no better than before; indeed, there will be created one more point of congestion between the Broadway and the bridge.
There is your new Cromwell Road extension. Along that there will be not one stream of traffic proceeding west, but two streams, one west and another which goes south-west across the river. Would not the sensible thing to do be, not to adopt the whole of the Royal Commission's scheme, but to put a new bridge at Fulham for the cross-river traffic, and then send the west traffic through an improved Broadway freed of bottlenecks That seems to me the simple, sensible, and I should think less costly way. But I am not really frightened of cost in this matter, because we are building for the future and if this is to be a great scheme for the future, I do not think this great country need bother about spending another £1,000,000 or so.
In reply to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Sir J Ganzoni), it is true to say that my scheme was not put before the Select Committee: for I did not give evidence. I think it is a practical scheme and a cheap one, and one which will prevent this ghastly devastation in the neighbourhood in which I live and which I know so well. With regard to the Homefields Recreation Ground, I am surprised to hear hon. Members say in this lighthearted manner that only an acre is to be taken from the middle of that 10 acres. When an application was made to the Select Committee that, following the old principle of Parliament, where open spaces are taken away there should be some compensatory space returned, the Select Committee said that would be too great a burden on the promoters. I am tempted to say that if this Bill goes through in its present form I at least will never again subscribe a penny or lift a finger for the purpose of providing recreation grounds for the children of the poor. What is the good of badgering the charitable to pay money for these purposes, what is the good of talking about the King George V Memorial Fund for playing grounds, if, when you have an existing playing ground, you permit a harassed bureaucracy in a hurry to blast a great motor-track through the middle and pay not a penny for it and provide not a scrap of land in its place? I ask the House whether Parliament ought to stand that sort of thing.
I apologise for speaking at perhaps greater length on this subject than may seem to be justified. But I am speaking in defence, not so much of my own home, in which I have lived for 20 years, but the homes of hundreds, indeed thousands, of my neighbours, both rich and poor. I am speaking also for a very charming and unique part of London which you would never be able to replace again. Perhaps hon. Members will laugh when. I tell them that the Dutchmen, when they come up the river in their fine ships and anchor above Hammersmith Bridge, look at the coast there and say that it is the finest coast in the whole course of their passage up the river from the Nore. Not only those who live in our part, but men and women who come from all over West London on Saturdays and Sundays and in the evenings all through the summer, come there because the walks beside the river there are so quiet and charming.
All that will go—I do not say at once, but eventually—and if any hon. Member thinks that that is funny or unimportant, I am sorry.
I do not think that even the motorists will get their money's worth from this scheme, and I am sure that the State, that is, the taxpayers, and the ratepayers will not get their money's worth, for the reason, as I have already said, that in two or three years' time you will have the same outcry about the bottleneck and the Broadway, and you will have to start all over again. From all these points of view—I may be wrong, I may be foolish, I may be parochial—there is in my mind a passionate conviction that this road is wrong, and I say that this House should not pass the Bill without a little more inquiry into the various alternatives than they have yet received.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. G. STRAUSS: I know the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Alan Herbert) takes a very deep and keen interest in this proposal, and it would be discourteous if this Debate closed without some reply from the promoting authorities to what he has said. I do not intend to keep the House by discussing the actual route which he criticised, because that has been discussed so much this evening, and the Chairman of the Select Committee which considered the Bill has told the House how it is that the Committee, after nine days' careful consideration of this very technical problem, which, of course, is one which can be settled much better by a small committee considering plans and examining witnesses than by a body as big as this House, came to the conclusion that this was the best solution of the problem, after examining many alternatives. Therefore, I do not want to go over the same ground again, nor do I want to reply to the point mentioned by the hon. Member in regard to the Homefield recreation ground, because that also was adequately explained by the Chairman of the Select Committee.
I would like, however, to put this to him and to the House: It is obvious that in any really important new road development of a comprehensive character, particularly if it goes through a built-up area, there are bound to be objections, and, maybe, some substantial

objections, to the route that is proposed to be adopted. Objections come from private individuals mho may be inconvenienced or from people who believe, on public grounds, that some other route should be taken. But, frankly, what has surprised me in regard to this Bill, which is going to drive a road some three and three-quarter miles long through built-up areas and which will cost over £2,500,000 and involve the rehousing of something like 2,000 working-class people, not miles away in Harrow, but in reasonably convenient places, is not the amount of criticism levelled against it, but the paucity of really effective criticism that has come forward. It is regrettable and inevitable that a certain amount of amenities should be destroyed by a. road of this sort, but I can assure the House that the promoting authorities took every possible care, in laying out this route, to avoid the destruction of or interference with more amenities than was absolutely necessary.
I want to deal particularly with the point put with regard to Chiswick Mall, and I think it is fair to say that that matter has been exaggerated by those who have spoken in defence of that area. It has really been suggested that we are going to destroy the water-front there, that Chiswick Mall will disappear, and that the Ministry of Transport, the Middlesex County Council and the London County Council are just a set of vandals who are going out to destroy the most beautiful spot in London. That, of course, is far from the truth, as has been explained. The area round Chiswick Mall has unfortunately decayed already of late. We are not going to interfere with the river-front in the slightest, and we are not going to destroy Chiswick Mall. The road is going 150 yards away from Chiswick Mall, and it is ridiculous to put before the House arguments that this road is seriously going to interfere with the amenities of Chiswick Mall as it is to-day.
I am sorry that there is going to be a road there, particularly because the junior Member for Oxford University lives in this delightful neighbourhood for it has brought him in against the Bill, and he is a doughty advocate of any cause he takes up. There are two consolations that I can give him however. One is that the public need for a road in this place is really overwhelming, and


I am sure he will agree that that public need must override all private considerations. The other consolation I would offer him is that this road will enable him to get to his constituency very much faster than he can get there now. In stressing and exaggerating the damage which will be done in this area, no mention has been made of the vast improvements that we are going to make in other parts along the road. There are large areas of semi-derelict houses which should have been pulled down long ago. As the result of driving along this new road they will be pulled down and decent, dignified buildings will be put in their place. No mention has been made, moreover, of the undoubted fact that this road will remove a good bit of the overcrowded traffic that exists in King Street and Chiswick High Road, and it should have as one result a reduction of casualties among the thousands of women shoppers and their children who use these thoroughfares.
Another argument that has been put forward is that this matter has not been given adequate consideration. It has been considered for over 50 years. This House in 1884 passed an Act promoted by a private company to carry out the first part of this road scheme by bridging over the District Railway. The scheme has been considered at various times, and after meticulous examination it has been agreed to by the London County Council unanimously, by the Middlesex County Council, by the Minister of Transport, by the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, and, after a whole barrage of learned counsel have put forward the objections to the scheme with all the eloquence at their command for

nine days, by the Select Committee which agreed that the scheme should be commended to the House. It is nonsense, therefore, to suggest that adequate consideration has not been given to it.

With regard to the speech made by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom), if the alternative which he suggested were really carried out, not only would it cost about £1,000,000 more, but, what he particularly objected to', namely, the large amount of compensation which, is involved in the scheme now before the House, would be greater under the proposal which he advocates. I suggest that the House should agree to the proposal which is now before it, that it should consider it on its merits apart from any political considerations such as some hon. Members have unfortunately tried to introduce in a letter which went round to some private Members. The two county councils concerned, London and Middlesex, have been charged by Parliament with the onerous duty of effecting the road improvements and road widenings which they consider necessary, and in their view the most important and the most urgent is the relief in this west part of London of the traffic blocks which are a growing and appalling feature round Hammersmith Broadway and a cause of intolerable nuisance and delays to the public. The two county councils are prepared to carry out this great and extensive improvement. They present this Bill to Parliament, and I ask Parliament to allow it to proceed.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 229; Noes, 33.

Division No. 210.]
AYES.
[10.27 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Burke, W. A.
Dalton, H.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Davles, D. L. (Pontypridd)


Adamson, W. M.
Cape, T.
Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Cary, R. A.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Day, H.


Allan, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Channon, H.
De Chair, S. S.


Ammon, C. G.
Charleton, H. C.
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Chater, D.
Dodd, J. S.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Clarke, F. E.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Cluse, W. S.
Duncan, J. A. L.


Barr, J.
Colfox, Major W. P.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)


Batey, J.
Colman, N. C. D.
Eckersley, P. T.


Benson, G.
Compton, J.
Ede, J. c.


Blaker, Sir R.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'burgh, W.)
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)


Bossom, A. C.
Cove, W. G.
Edwards, Sin C. (Bedwellty)


Boulton, W. W.
Craddock, Sir R. H.
Entwistle, C. F.


Broad, F. A.
Craven-Ellis, W.
Fleming, E. L.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Crooke, J. S.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.


Bromfield, W.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.


Brown, Rt. Hon, E. (Leith)
Crossley, A. C.
Frankel, D.


Buchanan, G.
Cruddas, Col. B.
Ganzonl, Sir J.


Bull. B. B.
Daggar, G.
Gardner, B. W.




Garro-Jones, G. M.
Leckie, J. A.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lee, F.
Rowson, G.


Gibbins. J.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Salmon, Sir I.


Goodman, Col. A. W.
Leonard, W.
Salt, E. W.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Leslie, J. R.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Levy, T.
Savery, Servington


Grenfell, D. R.
Liddall, W. S.
Scott, Lord William


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Seely, Sir H M.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Lloyd, G. W.
Selley, H. R.


Grimston, R. V.
Logan, D. G.
Sexton, T M.


Groves, T. E.
Lunn, W.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Lyons, A. M.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Guy, J. C. M.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Slikin, L.


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
McGhee, H. G.
Silverman S. S.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
MacLaren, A.
Simmonds. O. E.


Hanbury, Sir C.
Maclean, N.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st),


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Harbord, A.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Hardle, G. D.
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees. (K'ly)


Harris, Sir P. A.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Somervell Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Harvey, G.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sorensen, R. W.


Heligers, Captain F. F. A.
Markham, S. F.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Marklew, E.
Spears, Brig. -Gen. E. L.


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Mathers, G.
Spens, W. P.


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Maxton, J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Heneage, Lieut. -Colonel A. P.
Maxwell, S. A.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Tasker, Sir R. [...].


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Messer, F.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Holdsworth, H.
Morgan, R. H.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Holland, A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Thurtle, E.


Hollins. A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Tinker, J. J.


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Hopkinson, A.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Turton, R. H.


Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Nail, Sir J.
Viant, S. P.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Naylor, T. E.
Wakefield. W. W.


Hulbert, N. J.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Walker, J.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Jagger, J.
Paling, W.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


James, Wing-Commander A. W.
Parker, H. J. H.
Warrender, Sir V.


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Watson, W. McL.


John, W.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Westwood, J.


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Potts, J.
White, H. Graham


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Price, M. P.
Whiteley, w.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphlliy)
Pritt, D. N.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Keeling, E. H.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Kelly, W. T.
Radford, E. A.
Williams. E. J. (Ogmore)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Ramsbotham, H.
Williams. H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Kirby, B. V.
Remer, J. R.
WIndsor-Clive, Lleut.-Colonel G.


Lamb. Sir J. Q.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Latham, Sir P.
Ritson, J.



Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lawson, J. J.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Sir Henry Jackson and Mr. G. R.


Leach, W.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Strauss.




NOES.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Foot, D. M.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.


Atholl, Duchess of
Furness, S. N.
Moreing, A. C.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Owen, Major G.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hannah, I. C.
Sutcliffe, H.


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Young, A. S. L. (partick)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.



Erskine Hill, A. G.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Findlay, Sir E.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Sir Cyril Cobb and Mr. Astor.


Question put, and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 58.—(Further provisions as to petty sessional divisions and justices' clerks in Middlesex.)

10.35 p.m.

Mr. LYONS: I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.
Clause 58 contains two provisions which have no bearing at all on the major part of the Bill. They are, first, that the Standing Joint Committee of the Middlesex Quarter Sessions should have, for the first time in this country, the appointment of clerks to justices; and, secondly, that the Standing Joint Committee should have the power to revise the various petty sessional divisions in the county. The


House will be aware that this is a complete innovation in county procedure in connection with the administration of the criminal law, and we feel that a matter of this nature should not find its place in a Bill the gravaman of which is the purpose of providing new roads and transport facilities. We feel that, although, as I understand, the promoters of the Bill have met my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley), in whose name this Amendment stands on the Order Paper, and have offered to delete in another place that part of the Clause which would alter the procedure regarding the appointment of clerks to justices, there still remains a ground of objection in the giving to the Standing Joint Committee of the power of alteration and revision of the petty sessional divisions, and this Amendment has been put down for the purpose of eliciting the opinion of the Home Office and of the House on these matters.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. TURTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
The whole question of the revision of petty sessional areas has from time immemorial been in the hands of the Justices sitting in Quarter Sessions, and, although it may be said that in the Standing Joint Committee there are many magistrates, yet there is a county council element in it. It may be that at some future date measures will be necessary for the alteration of petty sessional boundaries and of the powers of local authorities in that regard, but I think it is most regrettable that such an innovation should be contained in a Bill the purpose of which, as we have heard for the last two hours, is to provide for the removal of bottle-necks, the use of the subsoil of streets, and the removal of human remains. This Bill is a Bill of the Ministry of Transport dealing with a specific point on which the House has just given its decision, but in the Bill there is hidden this new power to make alterations in connection with the criminal jurisdiction at quarter sessions and petty sessions in the county.
As my hon. and learned Friend has said, we have been told that in another place certain paragraphs will be deleted—that, in other words, Clause 58 will be

so truncated that it will not have all the defects that we see in it at present; but even then it will contain this power of the county council to determine what justices shall try specific cases, and I think all Members of the House will agree that it would be a great mistake if local administration became embroiled in matters of criminal jurisdiction. I do not say that there should never be any alteration, but I ask that any change should be brought about by a public Bill and not by a private Bill at this late hour of the night.

10.40 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): In accordance with long-established usage, the Home Office reported its opinion on this Clause when the Bill was in Committee and its report was in favour of the Clause. I understand that, since then, the promoters have made concessions to the point of view that has been put forward, which was that it was not perhaps desirable that a standing joint committee composed partially of elected people should have an extension of its functions in regard to the administration of justice, and in particular with regard to the conditions of service of officials connected with the administration. I think that that point has been met and it is now proposed thot the appointment of justices' clerks is to be made by the standing joint committee on the nomination of the justices, subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State and, on the other point, that the dismissal of a justices' clerk shall be made only on the representation of the justices, and shall also be made subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State. I understand that the promoters are ready to propose those alterations in another place.
With regard to Petty Sessional areas, the view of the Home Office is that there are practical advantages in giving power to the committee which has already the duty of fixing the clerks' salaries, to decide what in fact shall be the areas for which they have to provide accommodation and staff, and it is really for these reasons that we support the proposal. The standing joint committee of this county is in the unique position—perhaps this meets the objection that this proposal should not be included in a Bill with regard to a particular county—that


it is not a police authority. I think it is the only standing joint committee which is not a police authority, because it is in the Metropolitan Police District and the Home Office is the police authority. I hope the House will agree to take the view of the Home Office.

Mr. MESSER: Taking the Edmonton Division, which covers Enfield, Wood Green and Tottenham, would it be the justices of any one bench or of the whole division who will recommend the clerks?

Mr. LLOYD: It would be the justices of the particular bench.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: I hope my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) will not press this to a Division. This point was first raised about A fortnight ago as the result of a chance discovery by my hon. Friend the Member for East Cardiff (Mr. T. Morris) that this provision had been spatchcocked into a Bill devoted to road improvement. My name appeared to the original Motion, which was subsequently withdrawn. It is entirely improper in such a Bill to introduce something which affects the administration of justice. As a result of the notice of Motion which some of us tabled, negotiations took place in which my hon. Friend the Member for East Cardiff was concerned. He subsequently told me that he could not be here and that everything was reasonably satisfactory, and I have done my best to induce those who attached their names to the Motion not to object to the further consideration of the Bill. In making this appeal to the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester, I should like make a protest. It is entirely wrong that, when a, Bill is promoted primarily for a road, there should be casually inserted something Affecting a very much bigger constitutional issue. The offer made by the Middlesex County Council substantially meets the case. They are in rather a, different position from any other county council, but I hope that what we are being asked to agree to to-night will not be regarded as something which any other county council may bring forward, because I do not think that it will be suitable in any other case.

10.46 p.m.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: It is most unfortunate that this Clause is in the Bill, and I confess that the explanation which the Under-Secretary has given is wholly inadequate. There is a well-known phrase in the reports of the Home Office on private Bills upstairs, to the effect that such and such a Clause raises a matter of general policy which ought to be the subject of a public Bill. If there is anything which ought to be the subject of a public Bill rather than a Clause in a private Bill of this kind, especially as it is mainly concerned with another purpose altogether, it is a change in the law relating to the administration of justice. It is wholly improper that this Clause should have been put into the Bill and that the Home Office did not call the attention of the Committee to the fact that it affected the general law. If it is passed in this Bill, notwithstanding anything which may be said at this stage of the proceedings, it will undoubtedly be quoted as a precedent for other local authorities to attempt to get some sort of foothold in the field of the administration of justice.
This matter ought to be properly considered before the Clause is allowed to proceed. It is no argument at all to say that the Middlesex County Council is not a police authority, that its standing joint committee has nothing to do with the matter, and that, therefore, it should be entrusted with this particular job. This is bringing the elected local authority indirectly into touch with the permanent appointments relating to the administration of justice, and it is wholly wrong that that should be the case. It will be a very bad day for the administration of summary justice in this country if the local authorities, being elected bodies, are allowed to interfere in the administration of justice. I cannot understand why the Home Office have not reported more fully to the Committee on this matter, and particularly why the Under-Secretary has not seen fit to develop the theme more thoroughly and expansively to the House than he has done. If the question is pressed to a Division—and I certainly hope that it will be—I am sure that the House will be maintaining the best traditions of the administration of justice if it refuses to


allow this departure from the usual practice. It is wholly improper to bring in the indirect association of the local authority in this matter, and I am sure that the Bill will not be in any way interfered with in its general purpose if this Clause is struck out.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I would like to protest strongly against the growing habit of local authorities endeavouring to insert in Private Bills matters of this kind. It is all very well for the Under-Secretary to tell us that it is all right, but this is a complicated matter and one on which we should have the best legal opinion, and so far we have not heard any of the great lawyers explaining where we stand. The one thing we do know is that this is an innovation and that the Home Office approves it. We also know that there is this difference between Middlesex and the other counties. I would like to support strongly what has been said by my hon. Friend that it is not in the best interest of the House or the country that local authorities should tack on to a Private Bill innovations of this kind which escape the notice of the average Member. The House would be well advised to omit this Clause as a warning to local authorities that if they bring in these Bills they have no business to tack on sueh Innovations. These innovations are precedents. This one might be simple, but the next one might be harmful. Unless we have much greater authority for allowing this precedent I hope the House will turn down this Clause.

10.53 p.m.

Sir J. GANZONI: I agree that it is extremely undesirable that matters of importance and general application should be inserted in a private and local Bill. We considered this point carefully in Committee, and we had an important witness called specially to help us on this point. The Middlesex County Council have nothing in common with the average county in this matter. These courts sit six days a week and we were advised that it was desirable that the clerks should be appointed locally. Having regard to the fact that the area was practically the same as the London area, we thought it important that their status should be

raised and that they should be placed on a superannuation basis. We felt that this scheme could easily be distinguished from the case throughout the country in general, and that the present compromise is a wise one which the House can approve.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Member laying it down that this is not a precedent, but is an exception which applies only to Middlesex and the County of London and not a matter which applies to other counties?

Sir J. GANZONI: That is precisely what I wanted to convey.

Mr. LYONS: Having regard to what was said on behalf of the Home Office, and to the statement now made by the hon. Member, I would like to withdraw the Amendment. I join with what has been said by the two hon. Members opposite.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered,
That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time"—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (BY ORDER).

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 9th June.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (METERS) BILL.

Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. H. C. Williams.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 2—(As to existing meters.)

Lords Amendment: Leave out Clause 2, and insert new Clause A (Apparatus for meter testing, etc.)

10.57 p.m.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. SPEAKER: I have to inform the House that this Clause raises the question of Privilege. Is it the wish of the House to waive the question of Privilege and agree to the Amendment?

HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

Lords Amendment: After new Clause A, insert new Clause (Transitional provisions as to existing meters.)

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment"

Mr. SPEAKER: This Clause also raises a question of Privilege. I will have an entry made in the Records of the House.

Mr. EDE: May we have an explanation of the Clause?

Mr. WILLIAMS: It is only an Amendment dealing with the equipping of laboratories.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SHOPS BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Extension to lending libraries of the Shops Acts, 1912 to 1934, 2 & 3, Geo. 5, c. 3.)

Mr. R. C. MORRISON: I beg to move, in page 1, to leave out lines 17 to 23, and to insert
or to any free library attached to any club, institution, or business already in existence at the passing of this Act, or to any library at which the business of lending books or periodicals is not carried on for purposes of gain other than the making of profits for some philanthropic, religious, educational, or other charitable object.

It being Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed on Tuesday, 9th June.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — SEA-FISHING INDUSTRY ACT, 1933.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Captain Margesson.]

11.1 p.m.

Mr. RICHARD LAW: I ask the indulgence of the House at this late hour in order to draw attention to a matter which is I admit of greater importance to my own constituency than to the House as a whole. At the same time, while the question primarily concerns my constituency, it is a matter of considerable moment to every industrial constituency in the country and particularly to those in the North of England. It concerns the Northern Waters Order under the Sea-Fishing Industry Act, 1933. The House will remember that when that Act was passed, the trawling industry was in a condition of acute and even dangerous depression. It was in a state of such severe depression that the Minister of Agriculture very properly considered that he could not sit by and do nothing. Accordingly he introduced that Measure the principal object of which was to reorganise the trawling industry and, pending reorganisation, to raise prices to such a level as would enable the industry to carry on. Under the Act there was a restriction on the importation of foreign-taken fish and also a restriction on the size of mesh of fishing nets. Finally, there was a restriction on the landing of fish, not foreign-taken but British-taken, caught in certain specified waters at certain specified times of the year.
It is this final restriction, known as the Northern Waters Order to which my constituents object, and I submit that they have a legitimate grievance which it is within the power of my right. hon. Friend to remove. I do not wish to maintain that the Order has not been of considerable advantage to the industry and to the country as a whole. I would not even wish to maintain that it has not been of considerable advantage to the fishermen in the port of Hull. I do not think anybody would want to return to the chaotic conditions which existed before the Order was introduced. What I do maintain is that the Order has been far too drastic in its effects and has caused dislocation which could have been avoided.
I maintain further that while the advantages which have accrued from the Order have been shared by the fishing industry as a whole, the disadvantages which have accrued from it have been shouldered in the main by one fishing port, the port of Hull. It will be realised that if an important section of an important industry like the deep sea fishing industry is closed down for four months out of 12, simply by the fiat of the right hon. Gentleman, there must inevitably be considerable dislocation. In that case there must be considerable unemployment, and even if it is only temporary in nature, it is fair to say that the unemployment which has been caused by this Order has been concentrated in the port of Hull. It is equally true that a good deal of money has been lost by the operation of the Order and that the money has been mainly lost in the port of Hull. This was really the inevitable result of the Order because it was the enterprise of the fishermen of Hull which discovered these Arctic waters which are the subject of the Order, and the enterprise of the Hull fishermen which have developed them since. The fishing industry of Hull which, even in the presence of the Assistant Postmaster-General, I maintain is the most efficient and best organised fishing industry in the country, has been based to a large extent upon the fishing of these distant waters which is prohibited by the Northern Waters Order, and for that reason my constituents feel that they have a grievance.
It is the object of the Order to secure a moderate rise in the price of fish. But what has happened? In the case of cod fish, which is the fish principally concerned in the Order, the price has risen from 12s. 5d. per cwt. in 1932 to 17s. 10d. in 1935. That is not a moderate rise; it is an excessive rise, a savage rise in price. The second report of the Sea Fish Commission, which was issued a few weeks ago, stated that more than 50 per cent. of the white fish in this country was consumed in the fried fish shops in the big industrial centres, and particularly in Lancashire and Yorkshire. A very large proportion of the fish which is consumed in these fried fish shops is, in fact, cod, the kind of fish which normally would come from the prohibited area.
On account of this extraordinary rise in the cost of raw material fried fish

shops have been compelled either to raise their selling prices to the consumer or to reduce their turnover. In fact, as the report points out they are unable to pass it on to the consumer and as a result there has been a considerable reduction in their turnover. In other words, the effect of the Order has been that, on the one hand, there has been a fierce rise in prices which has to a limited extent benefited the producer but at the price of driving the producer's best customer to limit his demands, and of making everything much more difficult for the best customer of the producer. I submit that that is not a course which is likely to help the producer or anybody else in the long run.
There are two other points I would like to put to the Minister. The first is that when my right hon. Friend imposes his Order for four months in the year, the advantages of the Order, such as they are, are limited to four months, but the disadvantages persist for a considerably longer time. On 1st June my right hon. Friend will turn off the tap, and for four months not a fish will be landed from these Arctic waters. On 1st October, he will turn on the tap again, but it will be some time before the normal channels of trade recover their accustomed elasticity. It is impossible to dislocate a very considerable and very complicated trade for four months in the year and then, at the end of that four months, to expect that when supplies are again available, trade will resume its normal channels. I do not think that can happen, and in this case I think it has not happened. What happens is that for four months of the year there is a very steep rise in prices. Demand is killed because there is no supply, and when eventually the Order is lifted, there is an immense supply once again, but there is no demand, because the supply has been withdrawn for four months. The result is that a steep rise in prices, followed by an equally disastrous fall in prices. Therefore, I think there is something to be said for the argument that what the producer gains from an artificial rise in prices during the four months of the Order he loses by an artificial slump in prices after the Order is lifted.
The other point I would like to make is that I am told this year that the Icelandic fishing has been poorer in


quality and quantity than ever before. That may be chance, but I think it is possible that it is the indirect result of the operation of the Northern Waters Order. When the fishing vessels of Hull are forbidden the waters of the Arctic, as they are for four months in the year, they turn to waters nearer home, that is, the Icelandic fishing grounds. The result is that during the last three years these fishing grounds have been intensively fished for four months in the year when normally they would have been fallow, and the fact that in the fourth year they are proving to be disappointing may very well be connected with the over-fishing during the previous three years which has resulted from the Northern Waters Order. That is not a point I wish to press too strongly, because it may be merely a coincidence.
I would ask the Minister in the ensuing months to watch very carefully the operation of the Northern Waters Order. I do not ask him to sweep away the Order entirely, because I think to return to the state of chaos which previously existed would be disastrous to the fishing industry of the country; but I believe the Minister will admit that the Northern Waters Order is a very unsatisfactory and very crude instrument of regulation. It may be the only instrument which is ready to his hand, but I think he will admit it is a crude one. After all, the fishing industry probably more than any other form of enterprise is subject to acts of God. The weather and the habits of the fish themselves are always incalculable, and I think that generally speaking the system of crude prohibition which is implied by the Northern Waters Order is obviously unsuitable to such an industry as the fishing industry if any other better method of regulation can be found.
I would suggest that in future years the Minister should seek powers from the House to substitute for the Northern Waters Order some Order which would give him power not to prohibit the fishing of these northern waters, but to ensure that this kind of fish should be coming in in reasonable quantities. Obviously he cannot do that this year, but for this year I would ask him to consider very seriously limiting the period during which the Order operates. The report of the Sea Fish Commission

recommends that the Order should be limited to three months instead of four, and I would appeal to my right hon. Friend to accept -that recommendation. I know very well that in the past two years my right hon. Friend has done an enormous lot to help the trawling industry, and he has been very successful. The pages of the report of the Sea Fish Commission are a. testimony to the success of his efforts, and if I have been critical this evening of the Northern Waters Order, it is not because I do not appreciate his efforts. Everybody must admit that he has. done an enormous amount for the trawling industry, but the only thing I would submit is that in the matter of the Northern Waters Order he has rather overdone it, and I think he would get the advantages of the Order without its disadvantages if he adopted a somewhat less drastic and less crude form of regulation.

11.17 p.m.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I am sure the whole House has listened with interest, as it always does, to the well-informed and moderate statement of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hull (Mr. R. Law). I think it is true that the House should take every opportunity of observing the operation of the Sea Fisheries Act upon the fishing industry of this country, and I cannot but be grateful to my hon. Friend for having raised it this evening. Other opportunities will come up for a further review of the operation of these Orders, because it is in the Statute that before the quoted Order can be renewed there must be, this summer, an affirmative Resolution of -both Houses, on which an occasion will arise for a more extended review. My hon. Friend raised more particularly the position of the Port of Hull and his own constituents, and suggested that I should watch with very great care the operation of the Northern Waters Order this summer and the ensuing months. I am very ready to give him the assurance that 1 will do so.
I must, of course, watch the operation of the Order carefully, because it is, as he said, a crude instrument of handling this great industry, great in itself, in the honour that it brings to this country—for it is indeed an honourable thing, the extent to which the fishing


industry has been developed in Great Britain—and great also in the amount of wholesome food which it provides for the people of this country. It is a crude instrument, because at the time when we passed this Act which enabled the Order to be put on the fishing industry, as my hon. Friend truly said, was in a state of great depression, bordering almost on collapse. It is true that at that time fish prices were low and the consumer had the advantage of remarkably low prices.
It is not to the consumer's interest permanently to buy a product below the cost of production. We have seen the same thing in a hundred other cases of primary products. The miners continually complain that, if their product is bought below the proper cost of production, it is not to the advantage of the nation as a whole. The cheap coal which the nation receives at the expense of the primary producers is in the nature of a bankrupt sale, which does not redound to the permanent profit of anybody engaged in the operation. At that time the fishing industry was going through a period of bankrupt sales, and fish was being landed at, prices below the cost of production. It was not possible, out of the prices received, for the fishermen to renew the plant and gear which were necessary for the catching of the fish, and it was only for that reason that I adopted certain limiting measures—limiting in their immediate effect, and, as I believe, fruitful and reproductive in their ultimate effect, in that they enabled the industry to get profits without which, I believe, it would have cut its own throat, and committed suicide, and bankrupted itself. Finally it would have left the consumer with scarcer and dearer fish than has been secured by the operation of this Order. I do not think that is desired by my hon. Friend or the Sea Fish Commission. What he asks is that in the operation of these crude and empirical methods we should watch very carefully and ensure that a proper balance is struck.
I think it is true that, contrary to the expectation of many Members, the operation of the Northern Waters Order was followed by an improvement of spirit in the whole of the white fish industry. Larger vessels were built and a new spirit of exploration was fostered among the enterprises which were responsible

for sending out fishing fleets. I myself have inspected some of the new trawlers, which, both for their equipment for catching fish and, almost more important, their equipment for the comfort and decency of the men who have to operate them, compare more than favourably with any vessels which have previously been put into the water. I do not, therefore, apologise for the operation of the Northern Waters Order so far. I would say further, that although there has been a rise in the price of fish, it is not so marked this year as it has been in previous years.
Both in quantity and in price the landings of fish this year show, I think, that no injustice has been suffered by the merchants or by the vendors, such as the fish-fryers, this year as compared with previous years. In January for the first time for over five years, if not for the first time in history, the quantity of demersal fish landed topped 1,000,000 cwts. In February of last year the figure was 844,000 cwts., and this year 1,025,000 cwts. In March of last year it was 1,033,000 cwts., and this year it was 1,200,000 cwts. In April of this year it topped 1,300,000, which is a much greater figure than is recorded for any time in the past five years. The prices also have not been excessive. In January, 1934, the price of all demersal fish landed was 29s. 1d. per cwt., in January, 1935, 21s. 10d. and in January, 1936, 17s. 3d. In February, 1934, it was 23s. 2d. per cwt., in 1935 19s. 6d. and in 1936 15s. 4d. In March, 1934, the price was 20s.; in 1935 18s. 3d. and in 1936 15s. ld. It is true that that claim seems to alter as one comes to the month of April. The figures for April were in 1934 I6s. 7d. per cwt., in 1935 17s. 8d. and in 1936 15s. 5d. It is clear that the rapid falling off in prices which was evident in the first three months, is by no means so marked in the last months, and that is all the more reason for my watching very carefully the operation of the Northern Waters Order and the trend of fish prices during the months immediately to come.
All these things do seem to indicate that so far from a guillotining of supplies from the northern waters in the summer months some form of rationing, as my hon. Friend suggested, might be introduced. Therefore it is more than ever necessary for the white fish industry to consider very carefully the proposals of


the second report of the Duncan Commission on the White Fish Industry, which is now before the ports and fishermen. It may well be that some further organisation will need to be envisaged by the white fish industry. I am not either recommending that or refusing it. I am saying that this most interesting and valuable report is now before the industry. I think it is true that there are evidences that the landings do not correspond as closely with the demand as one would wish. At times they are above the demand and at times they are below it, and it may well be that some higher degree of organisation should be undertaken by the white fish industry.
I am more than pleased to find the white fish industry is taking very seriously the report which has been laid before it by the Duncan Commission. The fact that the men of the sea, at times the most independent and quarrelsome folk, have so readily taken into their cognisance these reports, in the case of the herring industry and the white fish industry, is a portent. It certainly shows that they are going through some grave trials; otherwise they would never have considered the great amount of organisation that is contemplated. Still more, they are displaying a lively interest in the new conditions and a lively readiness to cooperate with their neighbours which has

certainly been absent in all our experience of the men of the sea.
The Government take a keen interest in these matters, and in the distribution and the processing of the fish harvest. In the case of the fish fryers, the Government did their best, when the other great ingredient, potatoes, had risen to what they thought an unreasonable height, to deal with that situation by opening up the quota and by removing the duties which were limiting the potato imports into this country. They thereby caused a good deal of criticism from the other great branch of the food-producing industry in this country, the agricultural industry. This shows that the Government are interested, sympathetic and vigorous in their reactions to the problems of the trawling industry, and of the people who use the products of that industry, the fish fryers. I shall certainly, as my hon. Friend has asked, watch with the very closest interest the progress of fish prices and markets in the coming summer, and shall take into careful consideration the framing of long term legislation, in which this Order and the Duncan Commission's report will both be kept in view.

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.